Fredericton is a very safe and quiet city, except around the Tannery between 1-3 am, when a large crowd of drunk young people stream out of the bars, especially a little after 2 when they close. You get a few hundred people 'looking for action', and in their midst, a handful or more scumbags looking to fight. And a few others who just like to break stuff.
Some police presence is needed to keep a lid on.
The idea that police presence in the Tannery late at night represents a "police state" is laughable. The late-late vandalism and violence is just about the only crime in this super-quiet city that's not related to small-time drug trafficking and to small-scale robberies to fund drug additions. Seriously: Besides a few cars on the road to deter drunk drivers, where else should city cops be?
Again, the city is not dangerous, but it does have a definite problem with violence and vandalism in that area late at night. I think it's good to see the cops out of the donut shops and showing their colours there.
Police state nothing. Fights and even more so, vandalism is rampant in Fredericton on the weekends. A spike coincides with the bars closing. The police are doing their job. Kudos to them.
I can't say for sure if police walk the streets of Calgary at night or not. I don't know if anyone walks the streets of Calgary at night for that matter, but I am sure the police presence in that city is just as great as it is here and probably more. I also suspect that Calgary has a lot more than 2 streets to worry about patrolling in its downtown. If a police office walking the streets is uncomfortable for you could it be your doing something you shouldn't be hmm?
Being quiet has nothing to do with it. If you think everything is lovely except for 1-3 AM -which says it all, then obviously you've never lived on the northside.
Very few cities will you see police officers patrolling up and down sidewalks-if they need to be there, then there's good reason for it, which says it all about the city. All you have to do is read this blog to know what Fredericton is like. I lived in Ontario for years, and in Kitchener and Newmarket, you almost never saw a cop, even when the bars close. That's because people aren't drunk out of their minds and angry because their life is so shitty.
Calgary has a population much larger than all of New Brunswick and that bicycle patrol downtown is only eight cops. The other districts, which have bike cops part of the time, have only six each. And most of them are looking for drugs.
And of course the definition of a police state is that the number of people who are 'doing something they shouldn't' continues to grow. Now its those who are desperate enough to ask for some change, or dare to try to make some money with a guitar. Before 2004 that wasn't a big deal, but now it is. But as we know, there are lots of fans of police states out there.
Police state... A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force. Police force.... A body of trained officers entrusted by a government with maintenance of public peace and order, enforcement of laws, and prevention and detection of crime . Here is your problem Annoymous, I think you have your meanings mixed up. Clearly you can't tell your state from you force thus the confusion and obvious misplaced animosity. Now here is a thought, maybe those drunks wouldn't feel life was so shitty if they stayed away from the bars. But then that would mean they would have to be responsible and not be able to blame everyone else for there sorry lives. Why do something for yourself when you can get drunk, fight, destroy other peoples property and blame it all on someone else. And now the cops are walking around down town! Oh the inhumanity of it! Why can't we just do what ever the hell we want!
I'm all for a good debate and difference of opinion but calling lil ol' Fredericton a police state is utter hogwash. IMHO, of course and fortunately most others opinion as well.
I think you are misjudging your definitions. That's because you are probably white and middle class. Do you think Stalin ever bothered the people who supported him? Do you think Nazi's ever bothered those who supported the party?
Go read 1984, the 'blueprint' of the police state. They never bothered with people who supported the party. You support the state, so obviously you aren't going to bother with it. You aren't 'doing anything' so the police do not bother you.
Just look at this blog. Since 2004 we see poor people ticketed and jailed because they can't afford to pay a fine. A poor elderly woman who cant get up the stairs is threatened. You can't ask for money, you can't even sing a song. This isn't new, in the mid 1600's puritans threatened street singers with flogging.
As long as you support your 'state' then obviously you won't see it as a police state, because you are doing what you are told.
As for 'secret police', what do you think undercover cops do? What do you think informants do?
All the people who tow the line will obviously not call it a police state, because the police enforces their bizarre middle class values. They harass the kids and the poor and keep them from 'disturbing the peace', which is just suburban silence.
Then you can just look at Charles situation, in case you forgot, there were six men, Charles included, who were denied their right to enter the legislature based on a meeting that is to all intents and purposes, a secret trial. Eight men met behind closed doors and made this judgment which cannot be appealed, and without any opportunity for the accused to defend themselves. After 'passing sentence' Tanker Malley 'refused to show any evidence'.
Of course those who thinks its ridiculous are those whose interests the police serve, so they will never cede that its a police state. Just ask a poor person, or a native, or an environmentalist and you'll get a far different answer.
What a load of Bull Anonymous and you know it. Isn't it a shame you can't just do what ever you please. It is obvious that you in fact don't care what the meaning of a police state is and like most everyone that was born in this county you haven't the foggiest notion of what it would be like to actually live in one. Except for your short forays into the world of Literature with 1984 of course. (Like almost everyone else that went to at least High School) If you think not being allowed to disturb your neighbours at all hours of the night or destroy other peoples property because you feel "oppressed by the man" constitutes a police state then you better do one hell of a lot more reading. Your sorely out of touch with the real world. Fortunately for you what you do have is the right to set here and show your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject of repression of any kind, Something a real "police state" would of course never allow. I suspect your more the example of a spoiled middle class up bringing with too much time on there hands than anyone else in here
What a load of Bull Anonymous and you know it. Isn't it a shame you can't just do what ever you please. It is obvious that you in fact don't care what the meaning of a police state is and like most everyone that was born in this county you haven't the foggiest notion of what it would be like to actually live in one. Except for your short forays into the world of Literature with 1984 of course. (Like almost everyone else that went to at least High School) If you think not being allowed to disturb your neighbours at all hours of the night or destroy other peoples property because you feel "oppressed by the man" constitutes a police state then you better do one hell of a lot more reading. Your sorely out of touch with the real world. Fortunately for you what you do have is the right to set here and show your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject of repression of any kind, Something a real "police state" would of course never allow. I suspect your more the example of a spoiled middle class up bringing with too much time on there hands than anyone else in here
Your bitterness sure sounds like you have personal experience with the police. What crimes have you committed and been charged with that make you feel so "oppressed"?
In fact I CAN disturb my neighbours at all hours of the night, something that was also proven on this blog. Namely, a group of harleys driving around the neighbourhood. I can do that all I want.
By contrast, a group playing bongos very quietly in an already admitted noisy downtown doesn't disturb neighbours any more than the other noise-certainly not nearly as much as a harley revving through your neighbourhood.
Nobody said Canada was as bad as Columbia. Nobody said the police go around shooting people or even beating people. There have been incidents that make them look bad individually, and there have been numerous allegations against them collectively by native groups, protestors, visible minorities, and the poor. Police are like soldiers, they simply do as they are told.
As said though, go to any of those cities mentioned in Ontario-you don't see nearly as many police. Contrary to our untravelled friend I have personal experience with just about every continent. Oslo and Dublin are both more than ten times the size of Fredericton, you don't see nearly the amount of police, and of course it isn't illegal to simply ask for some spare change.
If a poor person is begging and gets a ticket they can't pay, they go to jail, simple as that. That's a crime against the poor, and the only thing that separates it from third world countries is the fact that there are not enough of the poor, and they are not armed enough to fight back. They just quietly 'disappear', either to jail, or to someplace less repressive.
Take a look at Canada's gun registry laws sometime, or Canada's new anti terror laws. You literally have no individual rights against the state.
That doesn't make Fredericton any more a police state than any place in Canada, but the draconian anti panhandling laws are quite rare in Canada. Even Mike Harris' conservative government didn't go that far.
Go to any third world country and the people who live in fear are the poor. THe upper middle class are usually quite well served even by military dictators. There aren't as many poor in Fredericton, because its a small city. But no doubt the rich Chileans would have said it was absurd that they lived in a police state under Pinochet-they weren't the ones who faced the violence.
If you don't 'face the violence' then you simply don't know. You can go on thinking such comparisons are absurd, as the above poster says, its your right. Contrary to popular belief, a police state doesn't necessarily restrict freedom of speech-when the people have no power the government doesn't really care what they say.
Contrary to opinion, the fact is that the police are unnecessary in many places simply because with a healthy community people don't WANT to disturb their neighbours. It's another sure sign of community decay when people assert that police are necessary because without them people will automatically turn to violent anarchy.
As long as you're impressed with me, anonymous (have we met? lol)
Hey, when the police mess up, I'm happy to point it out. As I've written in the past, the police probably overreacted in the case of Asaf Rashid. It just wasn't racially motivated.
With all due respect annoymous, this blog has rarely "proven" anything. It is almost entirely made up of opinions and as shown here opinions prove little except that indeed you have one. The fact is you throw around terms like"police state" that you know have absolutely no bearing on anything that might be happening in this city and then try to justify them by complaining about local noise and pan handling by-laws. The only thing draconian here is your attempt to compare this city to places like Chile and Columbia. If you know as much as you claim about the world then you know just how ridiculous that sounds. Just like wearing a Che Guevara tee shirt doesn't make you a revolutionary, breaking someone's flower pots at 3 in the morning doesn't constitute "violent anarchy". It's actually just plain drunken stupidity along with a calloused disregard for others. Frankly all you have proven is that if in deed you have traveled the world you have learned little.
You use double standards blatantly, Spinks. You have not said a word about poster using anti-semitism frivolously. People are anti-war but not anti-semitic. However if racism by police is the issue then you jump on that in no time. I saw the pictures of Rashid and how he was treated and also spoke to the people who were there. They have no doubt that certain police officer’s reaction was racially motivated.
Have we met? I hope not. I have no intention of meeting a hypocrite like you.
Again, it sounds ridiculous if you aren't poor and don't have to face up to the police state. Call it whatever you want, reality is what reality is. If you actually learn to read you'll see that nobody compared Fredericton to Chile, what was said was that the upper class in Chile would deny it was a police state because it works for them.
In Fredericton, the police certainly do not work for the poor. Nobody is talking about breaking flower pots and silliness like that, but we have plenty of examples, for those who actually look at facts and don't just spout their feelings.
1. Charles Leblanc and five others are barred from the Legislature in a closed trial with no evidence presented and no appeal or rebuttal allowed.
2. While vehicle noise is allowed, musical instruments, even played softly, are banned from the streets.
3. Panhandling and any type of 'soliticiting' is banned by Fredericton council. Technically, even asking somebody for a quarter for a phone call is soliciting. Of course such people wouldn't be prosecuted as they are not the poorer class. This is my opinion, but if somebody who was well dressed was standing beside their car and asked for a quarter for a phone call they would not be arrested. If a dishevelled street person asked for a quarter 'to make a phone call', it would be assumed that he was lying and would be ticketed.
4. Any type of 'standing around' is illegal without being able to "offer up reason" for being in an area. In essence, you cannot just stand in a public place 'without reason'. Otherwise it is loitering. Again, if you are dressed nice and just hanging around outside a store 'for no reason', or for any reason, then the cops won't hassle you. If you are poor, then they'll 'move you along'. The only place they won't is around the food bank, which is why they all spend their time there.
Those are not 'opinions', they are facts that are easily available in the local paper. The Fredericton by laws are available online.
The others have been openly debated on here and many witnesses have confirmed that they occurred. The only contention that has been made here is that many people WANT the police state to keep the rabble in line. That's fine if that's your opinion, don't belittle those with the opposing view.
Those four examples above are exclusive to Fredericton, if we want to travel a little further we can add Charles being arrested for taking pictures and having his pictures deleted.
And that doesn't even get into the rampant racism that the police have often been accused of, the gun registry, the anti terror bill provisions, etc., etc.
A police state doesn't necessarily kill people, it can simply jail them. If it can't find a reason, it can make them up to either get rid of the undesireables or imprison them, as is the case in Fredericton.
There is a reason that although natives only make up 2% of the population they make up 20% of the prison population. All of this stuff is well documented, I'm of course posting this for readers who like information, clearly there is no point 'debating' with anybody that says that such comparisons are 'just ridiculous' and keeps insisting that despite numerous and prolific proofs provided that I somehow agree with them.
The only real difference is relative. In reality, you can have a police state that only does good things-but it will still be a police state. In fact, the earliest police officers were more like social workers in Britain, enforcement was only a small part of their job, they also helped people find jobs, cared for the sick and disabled, and cleaned up city streets.
Just to avoid confusion though, I would define a police state as one where the 'rule of law' supercedes human rights. That is quite opposite of christian teaching and most modern democratic thinking. That is pretty much the same as the posted definition that started this off, the real bone of contention seems to be that 'some places are SO bad that Canada can't be compared to them'. THAT is true, but it isnt' true that the definition does not fit.
Sorry annoymous but last time I checked Police State was already defined. If your going to make up a definiton best make up the word too. But thats just my opinion and we all know what you can get with an opinion don't we. But thanks for yours anyway. You live in an extremely interesting world.
"A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people"
"especially by means of a secret police force."
"Police force.... A body of trained officers entrusted by a government with maintenance of public peace and order, enforcement of laws, and prevention and detection of crime "
That is the first definition given above, which is another way of saying what I said, which is that 'the state' supercedes human rights.
In the first instance the real standouts are the words 'rigid' and 'repression'. That's quite adequate, and as said, so long as you have money and don't protest anything then there is no rigid repression.
However, that's true of virtually every police state. It is those who fight against the government that are the subjects of rigid repression. Whether it be China, North Korea, Iran or Russia years ago, these states didn't go after the majority of the population, simply because not only does the state need those people working, it cannot overcome everybody.
I doubt very much if the police roaming the streets in Fredericton are 'keeping people in line'. As said, Fredericton is generally a safe and quiet city in most spots at most times. What they are doing is making sure there are no homeless or musicians around breaking the bylaws and that 'nobody gets out of line'. They are making sure people are doing what they are supposed to-namely sitting in a business establishment parting with their money.
At certain times of the day you can loiter so long as you don't look obviously homeless, but as we know, if you are poor you have NOWHERE to drink. Yet another example.
So like every society, the real 'rigid repression' is reserved for the undesirables, or those who protest government policy-like Charles or Asif, or any of a number of other protestors. As said earlier, simply go to other parts of the world and you do not see this. Many parts of the world are far worse, but if the only defence of your society is that 'its not as bad as the worst places', then thats a pretty crappy society we've got here.
By this point most New Brunswickers don't even bother going to protests because they know its a waste of time-but they also know what can happen to them if they show up. They can be arrested, they can lose their job and become one of the homeless. The vast majority of New Brunswickers do not work in the resource sector, but we see no protest at all even though the government has now essentially given away crown land to timber company's for almost nothing-to companies that are monstrously rich.
As for the 'secret police', we covered that...thats what undercover work and informants are. It's true they aren't as ubiquitous as in the most repressive states, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Here they exist primarily for one reason, and that's to make sure that people don't utilize a naturally growing plant.
The drug trade is essentially the 'industry of last resort' for many people, just as bootlegging was last century. You could be dying of cancer and throwing up from chemo yet it is still almost impossible to get the one naturally growing substance that has been proven to help you.
Again, if you never DO anything but go to work and spend your money and never object to anything the government does, then the state obviously will not be 'rigid and repressive' to you, in fact they love people like that because as this post proves, they will be defenders of the status quo and maintain that all criticism is 'simply ridiculous'.
However, YOU are not everybody, and there are still many restrictions on your life even though you've internalized them all. In fact, just go to the Fredericton website and read all the bylaws, then go to the province and read all their laws, then go to the federal government and read all their laws. Virtually everything you do is dictated according to the government from how many smoke detectors you have to licensing your dog, to the foods available to you, and the list goes on and on.
Just because you've accepted all the rules you must live by doesn't change the reality that the rules are there and that you played no part in their construction, and play none in their adoption-you just smile and do as you are told.
It might be unpleasant, but it is reality. The rigid state is more repressive on those with no means or who are 'different'. The middle class usually benefits by the state keeping the poor carefully hidden away. They do a bang up job of it in Fredericton, the primary reason it is necessary is that the society is now SO hard on the poor that their numbers are rapidly increasing.
My such prolific writing skills. I'll try to keep this short as I have been working hard all day and now must hurry so I might rush out and spend my disposable income on frivolous things. I would love to be able to go out to the bars tonight until 2 or so then wander the streets beating my bongos or tipping over planters but you know how we middle class are, between sleeping, working, raising families and trampling the poor theres just never enough time! You have rambled on here endlessly repeating the same old lines over and over. Filled with self righteous indignation and all for what? All because you know there is absolutely no truth to your absurd accusation of a "police state". That's all this is about. The inappropriate use of a couple of words. You could have done the decent thing and said "Yes, maybe that was a little over the top but there really is a problem and here's what you could do to help. Then maybe you might have gotten people talking about what you claim matters. But apparently admitting your wrong actually means more to you than that. Doesn't that make you feel bad? Probably not. There is a silver lining though. I have finally realized through you and others that the extreme right and the extreme left are actually very similar. They both feel that can accuse, insult and lie to justify there ends. You can call people Bigots or Hitlers and sling unsubstantiated accusations at a whim yet scream relentlessly when someone says they don't agree with you. Just like the far right your not interested in discussion only in being heard. The sadist thing though is both extremes have absolutely know idea how stupid they sound. Comes from preaching to the converted I suppose. Be careful that YOUR cause doesn't become more important than THE cause.
All of those points mentioned above are simple verifiable facts. Where the idea comes from that somehow providing numerous quantifiable justifications for the allegations somehow means that 'they are wrong' is beyond me. As for debate, it is all written above, and we can see from the above diatribe that there is only one poster here who isn't interested in debate. Ironic that somebody who is saying "dammit, admit you are wrong" is also saying that somehow they are the paradigm of openmindedness.
I even numbered the arguments to make it as easy as possible for people to comment on, nobody has, so clearly we see that debate is simply not desired. That's fine, but why your refusal to address facts somehow means that "I am wrong" is beyond my limited intelligence.
The petty sniping aside, in reality it isn't actually the middle class' 'fault'. If you've been downtown at those hours before, for years musicians played and nobody gave a rats ass. Certainly nobody called the cops. If you are going to live in downtown Fredericton you simply have to deal with some noise when the bars close. If you want absolute silence-move to New Maryland. During my younger years at college I pretty much lived in downtown Fredericton and hardly remember seeing police around at all. In fact I used to sleep right on the benches or even on patches of grass and was never bothered. My friends and I used to drink right on the park benches during our school years and got drunk right in afternoon by the westmorland street bridge. I don't remember ever seeing a cop around, let alone one on pedestrian patrol.
Likewise, almost nobody was complaining about poor people asking for money. When a person is aggressive, the police are called, simple as that. I have never seen a case of an attempted assault by somebody asking for change-they know its bad for business.
In reality it was a small group pushing for the change, namely business owners. There are dozens of ways that could be handled, for example, panhandling could be made illegal, but only during certain hours when the businesses are open. At night most downtown businesses are closed anyway.
It was fewer than a dozen people who ultimately made the decision that no soliciting of any kind would be tolerated in the city of Fredericton, and that probably on the complaints of no more than a hundred merchants-and probably not even close to that.
So it certainly isn't the average joe's fault that the government is doing this. Again, that is a feature of a police state, the people have no say in making the laws that affect them. This is not the states or Switzerland, the population plays almost no part in the formation of legislation, and no part at all on whether its adopted or not. You can choose not to vote for your representative next time, but that's it. Cities in the states and switzerland have referenda on such issues, and if most Frederictonians had voted for bylaw 91 (I think it is), then we could talk about their culpability. Yet thats far from the case.
So again, we have almost half a dozen features of the police state verified. So clearly there are very easy grounds for making such a claim. So far we haven't seen a single argument that Fredericton, even Canada, is NOT a police state. All we've seen is the statement that 'police states are necessarily much worse than here', and 'its too ludicrous to even discuss'. That police states can be relative addresses the first point, while the second point isn't actually an argument at all.
If somebody has an actual debateable comment on why such a term doesn't apply to Fredericton-or even Canada, they are free to post it. That we see none says it all. That those who have none resort to insults and the insistence that those who provide numerous justifications contrary to their view actually agree with them, says even more.
To me, when the terms police state can so easily be applied, that says that there is a problem, and people are free to help. As said, when I went to school in the early to mid nineties the 'police state' wasn't nearly as applicable. The police were hardly visible, Bill 91 hadn't even been dreamed of, and most of Canada's recent crackdowns on civil liberties weren't in place. As for 'what to do to help', that is simple-get them to change the legislation.
22 comments:
Welcome to the police state. Fredericton must be pretty bad to have cops walking the downtown streets. They don't even need to do that in Calgary.
Fredericton is a very safe and quiet city, except around the Tannery between 1-3 am, when a large crowd of drunk young people stream out of the bars, especially a little after 2 when they close. You get a few hundred people 'looking for action', and in their midst, a handful or more scumbags looking to fight. And a few others who just like to break stuff.
Some police presence is needed to keep a lid on.
The idea that police presence in the Tannery late at night represents a "police state" is laughable. The late-late vandalism and violence is just about the only crime in this super-quiet city that's not related to small-time drug trafficking and to small-scale robberies to fund drug additions. Seriously: Besides a few cars on the road to deter drunk drivers, where else should city cops be?
Again, the city is not dangerous, but it does have a definite problem with violence and vandalism in that area late at night. I think it's good to see the cops out of the donut shops and showing their colours there.
What are you talking about? Calgary has had a huge Mountain Bike Unit since 1990 that patrols in eight different districts.
Police state nothing. Fights and even more so, vandalism is rampant in Fredericton on the weekends. A spike coincides with the bars closing. The police are doing their job. Kudos to them.
I can't say for sure if police walk the streets of Calgary at night or not. I don't know if anyone walks the streets of Calgary at night for that matter, but I am sure the police presence in that city is just as great as it is here and probably more. I also suspect that Calgary has a lot more than 2 streets to worry about patrolling in its downtown. If a police office walking the streets is uncomfortable for you could it be your doing something you shouldn't be hmm?
Being quiet has nothing to do with it. If you think everything is lovely except for 1-3 AM -which says it all, then obviously you've never lived on the northside.
Very few cities will you see police officers patrolling up and down sidewalks-if they need to be there, then there's good reason for it, which says it all about the city. All you have to do is read this blog to know what Fredericton is like. I lived in Ontario for years, and in Kitchener and Newmarket, you almost never saw a cop, even when the bars close. That's because people aren't drunk out of their minds and angry because their life is so shitty.
Calgary has a population much larger than all of New Brunswick and that bicycle patrol downtown is only eight cops. The other districts, which have bike cops part of the time, have only six each. And most of them are looking for drugs.
And of course the definition of a police state is that the number of people who are 'doing something they shouldn't' continues to grow. Now its those who are desperate enough to ask for some change, or dare to try to make some money with a guitar. Before 2004 that wasn't a big deal, but now it is. But as we know, there are lots of fans of police states out there.
Police state... A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.
Police force.... A body of trained officers entrusted by a government with maintenance of public peace and order, enforcement of laws, and prevention and detection of crime .
Here is your problem Annoymous, I think you have your meanings mixed up. Clearly you can't tell your state from you force thus the confusion and obvious misplaced animosity. Now here is a thought, maybe those drunks wouldn't feel life was so shitty if they stayed away from the bars. But then that would mean they would have to be responsible and not be able to blame everyone else for there sorry lives. Why do something for yourself when you can get drunk, fight, destroy other peoples property and blame it all on someone else. And now the cops are walking around down town! Oh the inhumanity of it! Why can't we just do what ever the hell we want!
I'm all for a good debate and difference of opinion but calling lil ol' Fredericton a police state is utter hogwash. IMHO, of course and fortunately most others opinion as well.
I think you are misjudging your definitions. That's because you are probably white and middle class. Do you think Stalin ever bothered the people who supported him? Do you think Nazi's ever bothered those who supported the party?
Go read 1984, the 'blueprint' of the police state. They never bothered with people who supported the party. You support the state, so obviously you aren't going to bother with it. You aren't 'doing anything' so the police do not bother you.
Just look at this blog. Since 2004 we see poor people ticketed and jailed because they can't afford to pay a fine. A poor elderly woman who cant get up the stairs is threatened. You can't ask for money, you can't even sing a song. This isn't new, in the mid 1600's puritans threatened street singers with flogging.
As long as you support your 'state' then obviously you won't see it as a police state, because you are doing what you are told.
As for 'secret police', what do you think undercover cops do? What do you think informants do?
All the people who tow the line will obviously not call it a police state, because the police enforces their bizarre middle class values. They harass the kids and the poor and keep them from 'disturbing the peace', which is just suburban silence.
Then you can just look at Charles situation, in case you forgot, there were six men, Charles included, who were denied their right to enter the legislature based on a meeting that is to all intents and purposes, a secret trial. Eight men met behind closed doors and made this judgment which cannot be appealed, and without any opportunity for the accused to defend themselves. After 'passing sentence' Tanker Malley 'refused to show any evidence'.
Of course those who thinks its ridiculous are those whose interests the police serve, so they will never cede that its a police state. Just ask a poor person, or a native, or an environmentalist and you'll get a far different answer.
What a load of Bull Anonymous and you know it. Isn't it a shame you can't just do what ever you please. It is obvious that you in fact don't care what the meaning of a police state is and like most everyone that was born in this county you haven't the foggiest notion of what it would be like to actually live in one. Except for your short forays into the world of Literature with 1984 of course. (Like almost everyone else that went to at least High School) If you think not being allowed to disturb your neighbours at all hours of the night or destroy other peoples property because you feel "oppressed by the man" constitutes a police state then you better do one hell of a lot more reading. Your sorely out of touch with the real world.
Fortunately for you what you do have is the right to set here and show your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject of repression of any kind, Something a real "police state" would of course never allow. I suspect your more the example of a spoiled middle class up bringing with too much time on there hands than anyone else in here
What a load of Bull Anonymous and you know it. Isn't it a shame you can't just do what ever you please. It is obvious that you in fact don't care what the meaning of a police state is and like most everyone that was born in this county you haven't the foggiest notion of what it would be like to actually live in one. Except for your short forays into the world of Literature with 1984 of course. (Like almost everyone else that went to at least High School) If you think not being allowed to disturb your neighbours at all hours of the night or destroy other peoples property because you feel "oppressed by the man" constitutes a police state then you better do one hell of a lot more reading. Your sorely out of touch with the real world.
Fortunately for you what you do have is the right to set here and show your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject of repression of any kind, Something a real "police state" would of course never allow. I suspect your more the example of a spoiled middle class up bringing with too much time on there hands than anyone else in here
To Anonymous : 11:06 PM:
Your bitterness sure sounds like you have personal experience with the police. What crimes have you committed and been charged with that make you feel so "oppressed"?
Although I do not think Fredericton is a police state but I am impressed by Spinks how he comes to their defence.
Police has been unreasonable at times and we should point that out. It has been less than professional in few cases.
In fact I CAN disturb my neighbours at all hours of the night, something that was also proven on this blog. Namely, a group of harleys driving around the neighbourhood. I can do that all I want.
By contrast, a group playing bongos very quietly in an already admitted noisy downtown doesn't disturb neighbours any more than the other noise-certainly not nearly as much as a harley revving through your neighbourhood.
Nobody said Canada was as bad as Columbia. Nobody said the police go around shooting people or even beating people. There have been incidents that make them look bad individually, and there have been numerous allegations against them collectively by native groups, protestors, visible minorities, and the poor. Police are like soldiers, they simply do as they are told.
As said though, go to any of those cities mentioned in Ontario-you don't see nearly as many police. Contrary to our untravelled friend I have personal experience with just about every continent. Oslo and Dublin are both more than ten times the size of Fredericton, you don't see nearly the amount of police, and of course it isn't illegal to simply ask for some spare change.
If a poor person is begging and gets a ticket they can't pay, they go to jail, simple as that. That's a crime against the poor, and the only thing that separates it from third world countries is the fact that there are not enough of the poor, and they are not armed enough to fight back. They just quietly 'disappear', either to jail, or to someplace less repressive.
Take a look at Canada's gun registry laws sometime, or Canada's new anti terror laws. You literally have no individual rights against the state.
That doesn't make Fredericton any more a police state than any place in Canada, but the draconian anti panhandling laws are quite rare in Canada. Even Mike Harris' conservative government didn't go that far.
Go to any third world country and the people who live in fear are the poor. THe upper middle class are usually quite well served even by military dictators. There aren't as many poor in Fredericton, because its a small city. But no doubt the rich Chileans would have said it was absurd that they lived in a police state under Pinochet-they weren't the ones who faced the violence.
If you don't 'face the violence' then you simply don't know. You can go on thinking such comparisons are absurd, as the above poster says, its your right. Contrary to popular belief, a police state doesn't necessarily restrict freedom of speech-when the people have no power the government doesn't really care what they say.
Contrary to opinion, the fact is that the police are unnecessary in many places simply because with a healthy community people don't WANT to disturb their neighbours. It's another sure sign of community decay when people assert that police are necessary because without them people will automatically turn to violent anarchy.
As long as you're impressed with me, anonymous (have we met? lol)
Hey, when the police mess up, I'm happy to point it out. As I've written in the past, the police probably overreacted in the case of Asaf Rashid. It just wasn't racially motivated.
With all due respect annoymous, this blog has rarely "proven" anything. It is almost entirely made up of opinions and as shown here opinions prove little except that indeed you have one. The fact is you throw around terms like"police state" that you know have absolutely no bearing on anything that might be happening in this city and then try to justify them by complaining about local noise and pan handling by-laws. The only thing draconian here is your attempt to compare this city to places like Chile and Columbia. If you know as much as you claim about the world then you know just how ridiculous that sounds. Just like wearing a Che Guevara tee shirt doesn't make you a revolutionary, breaking someone's flower pots at 3 in the morning doesn't constitute "violent anarchy". It's actually just plain drunken stupidity along with a calloused disregard for others. Frankly all you have proven is that if in deed you have traveled the world you have learned little.
You use double standards blatantly, Spinks. You have not said a word about poster using anti-semitism frivolously. People are anti-war but not anti-semitic. However if racism by police is the issue then you jump on that in no time. I saw the pictures of Rashid and how he was treated and also spoke to the people who were there. They have no doubt that certain police officer’s reaction was racially motivated.
Have we met? I hope not. I have no intention of meeting a hypocrite like you.
Again, it sounds ridiculous if you aren't poor and don't have to face up to the police state. Call it whatever you want, reality is what reality is. If you actually learn to read you'll see that nobody compared Fredericton to Chile, what was said was that the upper class in Chile would deny it was a police state because it works for them.
In Fredericton, the police certainly do not work for the poor. Nobody is talking about breaking flower pots and silliness like that, but we have plenty of examples, for those who actually look at facts and don't just spout their feelings.
1. Charles Leblanc and five others are barred from the Legislature in a closed trial with no evidence presented and no appeal or rebuttal allowed.
2. While vehicle noise is allowed, musical instruments, even played softly, are banned from the streets.
3. Panhandling and any type of 'soliticiting' is banned by Fredericton council. Technically, even asking somebody for a quarter for a phone call is soliciting. Of course such people wouldn't be prosecuted as they are not the poorer class. This is my opinion, but if somebody who was well dressed was standing beside their car and asked for a quarter for a phone call they would not be arrested. If a dishevelled street person asked for a quarter 'to make a phone call', it would be assumed that he was lying and would be ticketed.
4. Any type of 'standing around' is illegal without being able to "offer up reason" for being in an area. In essence, you cannot just stand in a public place 'without reason'. Otherwise it is loitering. Again, if you are dressed nice and just hanging around outside a store 'for no reason', or for any reason, then the cops won't hassle you. If you are poor, then they'll 'move you along'. The only place they won't is around the food bank, which is why they all spend their time there.
Those are not 'opinions', they are facts that are easily available in the local paper. The Fredericton by laws are available online.
The others have been openly debated on here and many witnesses have confirmed that they occurred. The only contention that has been made here is that many people WANT the police state to keep the rabble in line. That's fine if that's your opinion, don't belittle those with the opposing view.
Those four examples above are exclusive to Fredericton, if we want to travel a little further we can add Charles being arrested for taking pictures and having his pictures deleted.
And that doesn't even get into the rampant racism that the police have often been accused of, the gun registry, the anti terror bill provisions, etc., etc.
A police state doesn't necessarily kill people, it can simply jail them. If it can't find a reason, it can make them up to either get rid of the undesireables or imprison them, as is the case in Fredericton.
There is a reason that although natives only make up 2% of the population they make up 20% of the prison population. All of this stuff is well documented, I'm of course posting this for readers who like information, clearly there is no point 'debating' with anybody that says that such comparisons are 'just ridiculous' and keeps insisting that despite numerous and prolific proofs provided that I somehow agree with them.
The only real difference is relative. In reality, you can have a police state that only does good things-but it will still be a police state. In fact, the earliest police officers were more like social workers in Britain, enforcement was only a small part of their job, they also helped people find jobs, cared for the sick and disabled, and cleaned up city streets.
Just to avoid confusion though, I would define a police state as one where the 'rule of law' supercedes human rights. That is quite opposite of christian teaching and most modern democratic thinking. That is pretty much the same as the posted definition that started this off, the real bone of contention seems to be that 'some places are SO bad that Canada can't be compared to them'. THAT is true, but it isnt' true that the definition does not fit.
Sorry annoymous but last time I checked Police State was already defined. If your going to make up a definiton best make up the word too. But thats just my opinion and we all know what you can get with an opinion don't we. But thanks for yours anyway. You live in an extremely interesting world.
"A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people"
"especially by means of a secret police force."
"Police force.... A body of trained officers entrusted by a government with maintenance of public peace and order, enforcement of laws, and prevention and detection of crime "
That is the first definition given above, which is another way of saying what I said, which is that 'the state' supercedes human rights.
In the first instance the real standouts are the words 'rigid' and 'repression'. That's quite adequate, and as said, so long as you have money and don't protest anything then there is no rigid repression.
However, that's true of virtually every police state. It is those who fight against the government that are the subjects of rigid repression. Whether it be China, North Korea, Iran or Russia years ago, these states didn't go after the majority of the population, simply because not only does the state need those people working, it cannot overcome everybody.
I doubt very much if the police roaming the streets in Fredericton are 'keeping people in line'. As said, Fredericton is generally a safe and quiet city in most spots at most times. What they are doing is making sure there are no homeless or musicians around breaking the bylaws and that 'nobody gets out of line'. They are making sure people are doing what they are supposed to-namely sitting in a business establishment parting with their money.
At certain times of the day you can loiter so long as you don't look obviously homeless, but as we know, if you are poor you have NOWHERE to drink. Yet another example.
So like every society, the real 'rigid repression' is reserved for the undesirables, or those who protest government policy-like Charles or Asif, or any of a number of other protestors. As said earlier, simply go to other parts of the world and you do not see this. Many parts of the world are far worse, but if the only defence of your society is that 'its not as bad as the worst places', then thats a pretty crappy society we've got here.
By this point most New Brunswickers don't even bother going to protests because they know its a waste of time-but they also know what can happen to them if they show up. They can be arrested, they can lose their job and become one of the homeless. The vast majority of New Brunswickers do not work in the resource sector, but we see no protest at all even though the government has now essentially given away crown land to timber company's for almost nothing-to companies that are monstrously rich.
As for the 'secret police', we covered that...thats what undercover work and informants are. It's true they aren't as ubiquitous as in the most repressive states, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Here they exist primarily for one reason, and that's to make sure that people don't utilize a naturally growing plant.
The drug trade is essentially the 'industry of last resort' for many people, just as bootlegging was last century. You could be dying of cancer and throwing up from chemo yet it is still almost impossible to get the one naturally growing substance that has been proven to help you.
Again, if you never DO anything but go to work and spend your money and never object to anything the government does, then the state obviously will not be 'rigid and repressive' to you, in fact they love people like that because as this post proves, they will be defenders of the status quo and maintain that all criticism is 'simply ridiculous'.
However, YOU are not everybody, and there are still many restrictions on your life even though you've internalized them all. In fact, just go to the Fredericton website and read all the bylaws, then go to the province and read all their laws, then go to the federal government and read all their laws. Virtually everything you do is dictated according to the government from how many smoke detectors you have to licensing your dog, to the foods available to you, and the list goes on and on.
Just because you've accepted all the rules you must live by doesn't change the reality that the rules are there and that you played no part in their construction, and play none in their adoption-you just smile and do as you are told.
It might be unpleasant, but it is reality. The rigid state is more repressive on those with no means or who are 'different'. The middle class usually benefits by the state keeping the poor carefully hidden away. They do a bang up job of it in Fredericton, the primary reason it is necessary is that the society is now SO hard on the poor that their numbers are rapidly increasing.
My such prolific writing skills. I'll try to keep this short as I have been working hard all day and now must hurry so I might rush out and spend my disposable income on frivolous things. I would love to be able to go out to the bars tonight until 2 or so then wander the streets beating my bongos or tipping over planters but you know how we middle class are, between sleeping, working, raising families and trampling the poor theres just never enough time!
You have rambled on here endlessly repeating the same old lines over and over. Filled with self righteous indignation and all for what? All because you know there is absolutely no truth to your absurd accusation of a "police state". That's all this is about. The inappropriate use of a couple of words. You could have done the decent thing and said "Yes, maybe that was a little over the top but there really is a problem and here's what you could do to help. Then maybe you might have gotten people talking about what you claim matters. But apparently admitting your wrong actually means more to you than that. Doesn't that make you feel bad? Probably not.
There is a silver lining though. I have finally realized through you and others that the extreme right and the extreme left are actually very similar. They both feel that can accuse, insult and lie to justify there ends. You can call people Bigots or Hitlers and sling unsubstantiated accusations at a whim yet scream relentlessly when someone says they don't agree with you. Just like the far right your not interested in discussion only in being heard. The sadist thing though is both extremes have absolutely know idea how stupid they sound. Comes from preaching to the converted I suppose. Be careful that YOUR cause doesn't become more important than THE cause.
All of those points mentioned above are simple verifiable facts. Where the idea comes from that somehow providing numerous quantifiable justifications for the allegations somehow means that 'they are wrong' is beyond me. As for debate, it is all written above, and we can see from the above diatribe that there is only one poster here who isn't interested in debate. Ironic that somebody who is saying "dammit, admit you are wrong" is also saying that somehow they are the paradigm of openmindedness.
I even numbered the arguments to make it as easy as possible for people to comment on, nobody has, so clearly we see that debate is simply not desired. That's fine, but why your refusal to address facts somehow means that "I am wrong" is beyond my limited intelligence.
The petty sniping aside, in reality it isn't actually the middle class' 'fault'. If you've been downtown at those hours before, for years musicians played and nobody gave a rats ass. Certainly nobody called the cops. If you are going to live in downtown Fredericton you simply have to deal with some noise when the bars close. If you want absolute silence-move to New Maryland. During my younger years at college I pretty much lived in downtown Fredericton and hardly remember seeing police around at all. In fact I used to sleep right on the benches or even on patches of grass and was never bothered. My friends and I used to drink right on the park benches during our school years and got drunk right in afternoon by the westmorland street bridge. I don't remember ever seeing a cop around, let alone one on pedestrian patrol.
Likewise, almost nobody was complaining about poor people asking for money. When a person is aggressive, the police are called, simple as that. I have never seen a case of an attempted assault by somebody asking for change-they know its bad for business.
In reality it was a small group pushing for the change, namely business owners. There are dozens of ways that could be handled, for example, panhandling could be made illegal, but only during certain hours when the businesses are open. At night most downtown businesses are closed anyway.
It was fewer than a dozen people who ultimately made the decision that no soliciting of any kind would be tolerated in the city of Fredericton, and that probably on the complaints of no more than a hundred merchants-and probably not even close to that.
So it certainly isn't the average joe's fault that the government is doing this. Again, that is a feature of a police state, the people have no say in making the laws that affect them. This is not the states or Switzerland, the population plays almost no part in the formation of legislation, and no part at all on whether its adopted or not. You can choose not to vote for your representative next time, but that's it. Cities in the states and switzerland have referenda on such issues, and if most Frederictonians had voted for bylaw 91 (I think it is), then we could talk about their culpability. Yet thats far from the case.
So again, we have almost half a dozen features of the police state verified. So clearly there are very easy grounds for making such a claim. So far we haven't seen a single argument that Fredericton, even Canada, is NOT a police state. All we've seen is the statement that 'police states are necessarily much worse than here', and 'its too ludicrous to even discuss'. That police states can be relative addresses the first point, while the second point isn't actually an argument at all.
If somebody has an actual debateable comment on why such a term doesn't apply to Fredericton-or even Canada, they are free to post it. That we see none says it all. That those who have none resort to insults and the insistence that those who provide numerous justifications contrary to their view actually agree with them, says even more.
To me, when the terms police state can so easily be applied, that says that there is a problem, and people are free to help. As said, when I went to school in the early to mid nineties the 'police state' wasn't nearly as applicable. The police were hardly visible, Bill 91 hadn't even been dreamed of, and most of Canada's recent crackdowns on civil liberties weren't in place. As for 'what to do to help', that is simple-get them to change the legislation.
Post a Comment