Jump to navigation
I seem to remember being critical of Heather Mallick's first column at Rabble as being a little fluffy. I think it was an attack on People Magazine, or the people who read People.
This article seems rather salient to me.
Finding that I was spending too much time on Babble, I left for a while. But I returned at the time former RCMP Czar Zacardelli contemptuously blew off parliament. I returned to do a sanity check, I thought I'd find myself in good company to do some rolling around in self righteous indignation of it all.
But through that and other examples of not just our law enforcement, but the leadership of country acting above the law with little reason to fear consequence, I feel awash in a see of poltroons.
Sure, others share my dismay, but aside from blowing off steam here, and doing a sanity check by not feeling quite so alone, the lack of action in the face of this creeping totalitarianism is, to say the least, disconcerting.
But then, where do you start?
I think Mallick points to one place. What are you going to do if you see this happen in front of you?
I don't have the man electrically shocked, mainly because this is the type of person most likely to buy my book at the end of the reading. But also, it's just not done, in the same way that one does not use the same toothpick to repeatedly dip one's shrimp in communal sauce; it's not hygienic. It may be thrifty, it may even be harmless, but it is beyond the pale.
These are the rules of socializing en masse.
These are the rules of socializing en masse.
I like reading her stuff, but sometimes I just don't understand her. Part of her writing is always totally pretentious, (just my opinion), but to make up for that, she always makes really good points. But, for example, like in the quote above, I can't tell if she's making jokes, or what the hell she is talking about. Seriously. I get a kick out of it actually.
The kid seems like a bit of a brat, and a little self-absorbed (theandrewmeyer.com, famouswritrerman email address) but resorting to violence against him is frightening, amazingly repressive, and worries me that this will become the norm for dissent. One lone voice in the crowd decrying it wouldn't stop it either, you would almost need the entire auditorium to tell the cops to back off an take it easy.
And if we all got to go around tasing people we thought were annoying, I know for a fact, I'd be busy nearly 24/7. And I'd also be tasing myself from time to time too.
[ 29 September 2007: Message edited by: anchovy breather ]
The idea of police being equipped with tasers was sold to the public as an alternative to using deadly force to subdue a suspect. And I suspect is has likely saved many lives.
But, as we have seen in many examples, tasers are being used as a toy. It's a catch 22 device. How are you supposed to keep still and stop resisting when your muscles are under the control of the officer?
I mean, holy shit. There was even a case in Florida where a five year old was tasered.
Which, five year old aside, is probably predictable behavior. Of course, cops being human, there were bound to be cases of taser abuse. The real criminals though, are the Crown Atorney's that don't pursue criminal charges against those cops. They bring the law into disrepute by their cowardly inactions.
If we take a look at the Air India Inquiry, we learned this week that now Justice Jardine, the prosecutor in the original trial, scribbled notes about the incompetence of CSIS when CSIS told him tapes important to the prosecution were erased.
But, did Jardine direct police to investigate what is clearly a case of obstruction of justice?
No. What a stinking coward he was.
It's because of poltroons like Jardine that police, RCMP and CSIS can act above the law. And now Jardine is a judge. Lord help us all.
Mallick points to all the students who stood by and did nothing, when of course they should have intervened. But it's nothing compared to how many people in our so called leadership that stand by and do nothing.
Just wait for that new pain ray to become standard law enforcement issue.
I kinda feel that those 'in power' that could prevent abuses of power and misconduct only choose not to because they can get away with not. There's a huge amount of apathy out there. And Canadians also have kinda a blind trust in politicos to take care of 'business', so to speak, that never ends up getting taken care of.
I used to be one of those types of Canadians, and believe it or don't, it's still the reflex with me. We could call it being deferential to authority, but in the final analysis it's laziness.
In another thread, a case of horrific abuse was discussed. A woman was sentenced to a good many years because, while she did not participate in the abuse, she knew it was happening.
A few weeks ago, it became known that the deputy director of CSIS knew Arar was shipped off to a Syrian jail, and is hardly in a position to have any plausible denial concerning what goes on in Syrian jails.
He said nothing. Like the woman in the above mentioned abuse case.
And, no one at the inquiry, no one on Parliament Hill who has contact with this guy, could find the decency to put a hand on his elbow and tell him he was under arrest.
How difficult is it just to do the right thing?
It's funny how the cops yell at people to PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK NOW OUR I'LL TASER YOU AGAIN! and then blast them again when their victims scream "I can't, I can't."
And I'll bet they love torturing people with electricity, too.
[ 29 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
It's pretty sick ..these tools of the police are marketed as safe effective ways of dealing with the public. However they seem to be just another killing tool of intimidation and terror.
Consider the fact that people have actually been killed by these tasers..because they are under the influence of some drug..then consider the fact that most people are under the influence of some drug or another ..be it legal or illegal that most likely has a dangerous side effect to begin with that can kill when subject to nervous system attack.
These tasers were obviously developed for use on the perfectly fit person that is so healthy they don't require a drug of any kind.
It's also cruel and sick because most people are unhealthy in the first place from pollution and government approved toxins..so if any thing the use of these tasers is a human rights violation if there ever was one.
If you think that's bad ..the next step is the use of microwaves on people as an intimidation tool of terror...there they plan to cook people from the inside out like a thanksgiving turkey.
What can you do? First thing is to eliminate (by voting) the governments responsible for bringing this weapon of intimidation to the general public...By voting and speaking about the problem it exposes what these power hungry cowards are all about....intimidation, terror and power.
So instead of applying a device on people to apprehend them ..they end up killing them in the process....and then they get away with it..that's pretty sick, cruel and unjust.
FYI: Police organizations and governments have organized conferences and done a number of studies justifying the use of tasers, trivializing the deaths associated with their use, ascribing such deaths to a pre-existing condition or the use of certain drugs, and, generally, spent a lot of cash to ensure their continued use.
To have any success of stopping their use the other side will have to be as well organized and prepared. There are some good signs:
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/19/national/19taser.html]Police Group Urges Limits on Taser Use[/url]
When the police themselves put their use into question, that's a good sign.
[ 30 September 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
I'm not encouraged.
"...the group suggested that officers be allowed to use the stun guns only on people who are aggressively resisting arrest, not just refusing to follow orders..."
Yeah, right. By standard police definitions of "resisting arrest", that would give approval to the tasering at the John Kerry meeting.
The existence of this "influential police research group" is explained in the following passage:
Though its recommendations are not binding, they are closely watched by civil rights groups and plaintiffs lawyers. Police departments that do not follow them could face greater [b]legal liability.[/b]