The Canada thread

[Iamwhomiam]

Seems that some could interpret that sign to mean "Good Behaviour" might be considered to be Anti-Social in the "Zone."

[semper occultus]

Jeff, what the hell is this?

...well it ain't Canadian I can tell you that :

What is a dispersal order and the good behaviour zone?

Part 4 (sections 30-36) of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 gives the police, working with local authorities, new powers to target action in problem areas to help communities remove intimidation and anti-social behaviour from their streets. These powers have been available since 20 January 2004.

The powers enable a senior police officer to designate an area where there is persistent anti-social behaviour and a problem with groups causing intimidation. This area could be as small as a cash point or shopping arcade where groups often gather, or it could be as wide as a whole local authority area, as long as there is evidence of anti-social behaviour. The local authority must also agree to the designation, usually this decision will be made as part of the strategic work of a crime and disorder partnership.

The decision to designate an area must be published in a local newspaper or by notices in the local area, the designation can then last for up to six months. The designated area must be clearly defined, usually by a description of the streets or roads bordering the area.

Within designated areas the police and community support officers (CSO) have the power to:
• disperse groups where the relevant officer has reasonable grounds for believing that their presence or behaviour has resulted, or is likely to result, in a member of the public from being harassed intimidated, alarmed or distressed. Individuals can be directed to leave the locality and may be excluded from the area for up to 24 hours.
• a refusal to follow the officer's directions to disperse is a summary offence. The penalty on conviction for this offence is a fine not exceeding level 4 or a maximum of three months' imprisonment (for adults).

www.towerhamlets.gov.uk

[Feilan]

Thanks very much for your thoughtful responses, gentlemen. I greatly appreciate them. I will send a link for that Surette piece to my Dad ... ask him what he thought of it... see how far we can go with a conversation without the awful tension and emotions I still remember and want to avoid now as badly as I once sought to stir them up.

You zeroed in on the personal dimension of it for me, Iamwhoiam. I have very distant feelings about most of my family except my parents whom I have tremendous love and respect for. I see my father as someone of powerful intelligence, very much concerned with what is right, fair and good, albeit someone whose freedom to consider a wider variety of positions on things has been stunted by his - erm... career choice.

"Peace, order and good government" might well be tattooed on his inner being somewhere ... this is precisely why I find it so incomprehensible that he gives his vote to the talking stain making a constant mockery of his values. Harper is what my father is not.

The last time I was home, I tiptoed up to the elephant that's always in the room after my Mom had gone to bed ... "...but he's a liar, a cheat, he's fundamentally ANTI-democratic in tone and in practice...", said I. "Yes...", said my father. I was so shocked, I didn't know what to say next, so I didn't go on with it. I mean, if he acknowledges that statement as true, then how ... ??? ...wtf?! Total. Cognitive. Dissonance.

I suppose this is that conversation needing to be picked up again after a couple of years spent in an effort to collect my thoughts ... That Harper exists does not surprise me in any way. That people like my father give him power and permission to do his worst so confounds me, I feel altogether lost in the woods. Perhaps the best way to go about it is not to tell him something, but rather to sincerely and respectfully ask him, "Why?"... In these situations my mother always says, "Don't ask the question if you think you won't like the answer."

[2012 Countdown]

OT-

This is what Olympic London looks like: a police 'Good Behaviour Zone' sign in Tower Hamlets pic.twitter.com/dlyrj2OE

http://twitter.com/danhancox/status/216 ... 01/photo/1


City of London creates a 'good behaviour zone'
City of London police are setting up 'good behaviour zones'.

The policy was first announced in this poster here.
A Flickr photo captures a good behaviour zone sign on location.
The justification is that City of London Police believes that 'there are grounds to believe that members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed as a result of the presence or behaviour of groups of people within the estate acting anti-socially'.
As a result: 'If an officer feels that two or more people gathering in a public place are causing or are likely to cause anti social behaviour they may order you to disperse.'
It is an offence to refuse to comply with the directions of an officer or CSO.
So the police can order you to leave an area if they suspect that you might be about to behave 'anti-socially' - and if you refuse their order to disperse then you are committing an offence.
This gives carte blanche to arbitrary power and the whim of police officers. There is not even need for 'reasonable suspicion' by the officer - just a feeling.
So far as the Manifesto Club is aware, there is no 'good behaviour zone' power. The City of London has invoked dispersal zone powers, which are becoming a 'tool' of choice in many authorities across the country.
Dispersal zones mean the extension of arbitrary power and the erosion of public liberties - particularly the liberties of young people who tend to be criminalised for nothing more than hanging around with their mates.

Tamsin Fulton has produced an excellent interactive guide to London dispersal zones.
-
http://www.manifestoclub.com/node/795

[Canadian_watcher]

"Peace, order and good government" might well be tattooed on his inner being somewhere ... this is precisely why I find it so incomprehensible that he gives his vote to the talking stain making a constant mockery of his values. Harper is what my father is not.

The last time I was home, I tiptoed up to the elephant that's always in the room after my Mom had gone to bed ... "...but he's a liar, a cheat, he's fundamentally ANTI-democratic in tone and in practice...", said I. "Yes...", said my father. I was so shocked, I didn't know what to say next, so I didn't go on with it. I mean, if he acknowledges that statement as true, then how ... ??? ...wtf?! Total. Cognitive. Dissonance.

There is an interesting and free e-book written in 2006 by professor Robert Altemeyer from U of Manitoba. He spent his lifetime studying the followers of authoritarian leaders to try and figure out what makes them tick. As he states,

But ultimately, in a democracy, a wannabe tyrant is just a comical figure on a soapbox unless a huge wave of supporters lifts him to high office.
That’s how Adolf Hitler destroyed the Weimar Republic and became the Fuhrer. So we need to understand the people out there doing the wave. Ultimately the problem lay in the followers.

Here is a snippet and then I'll link to the ebook. It is very readable and illuminating. (sorry about the formatting.. PDF issues)

Right-Wing and Left-Wing Authoritarian Followers

Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their
society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people
have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled,
customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these
followers have personalities featuring:
1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in
their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism.

Because the submission occurs to traditional authority, I call these followers rightwing
authoritarians. I’m using the word “right” in one of its earliest meanings, for in
Old English “riht”(pronounced “writ”) as an adjective meant lawful, proper, correct,
doing what the authorities said. (And when someone did the lawful thing back then,
maybe the authorities said, with a John Wayne drawl, “You got that riht, pilgrim!”)

In North America people who submit to the established authorities to
extraordinary degrees often turn out to be political conservatives, so you can call
them “right-wingers” both in my new-fangled psychological sense and in the usual
political sense as well. But someone who lived in a country long ruled by Communists
and who ardently supported the Communist Party would also be one of my
psychological right-wing authoritarians even though we would also say he was a
political left-winger. So a right-wing authoritarian follower doesn’t necessarily have
conservative political views. Instead he’s someone who readily submits to the
established authorities in society, attacks others in their name, and is highly
conventional. It’s an aspect of his personality, not a description of his politics. Rightwing
authoritarianism is a personality trait, like being characteristically bashful or
happy or grumpy or dopey.

There is a quiz in there which readers can take to discover their score on the RWA scale (right wing authoritarian scale) - I found it interesting although not surprising, in most cases, to learn of the actions taken by people with higher scores on the scale. Like I said in my post above, I feel that more and more people are succumbing to this notion of 'father knows best.' Perhaps it is because our times are so uncertain, people are not intestinally fortified enough to trust themselves to find their own way, they'd rather have someone.. anyone... directing them.

here's the link to the ebook: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

[Jeff]

I feel that more and more people are succumbing to this notion of 'father knows best.' Perhaps it is because our times are so uncertain -

Absolutely agree. It's why right-wing authoritarians get away with manufacturing crises. They're always the ones to swoop in with reassuring "security."

And I found this interesting. A couple of days ago Ipsos released a national poll with the NDP at 38%, Conservatives 35% and Liberals 18%. The first headline to the CanWest Global story was "NDP Support Soars Past the Conservatives." Within minutes it was rewritten to "NDP, Tories in statistical dead heat."

How do you beat an opponent that owns the media? Oh, and also habitually commits election fraud? I guess you can, but you have to beat them by a much greater margin than if it were a fair match.

A few weeks ago the Conservatives and their cadres of pundits were bursting with glee at Mulcair "self-destructing" by criticizing the tar sands. Given opportunity to backtrack, Mulcair pressed on, showing conviction and resolve (and also reassuring some of his critics from the leadership campaign). Against Conservative expectations, Mulcair and the party became more popular. I think this perhaps has shocked and confused Conservative strategists into inaction for the moment. It won't last, but right now they're acting as though for the first time they don't know how to effectively respond to an opponent.

Which also means, for the first time in this country, I'm actually beginning to worry about "lone nuts."

BTW, a good feature interview with Mulcair this morning on Sunday Edition:

http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/show ... s-mulcair/

[Joe Hillshoist]

How do you beat an opponent that owns the media?

Thats Australia's problem as well, tho the media owning opponent supports an opposition party, also falsely calling themselves Tories and in bed with massive mining interests.

[Canadian_watcher]

How do you beat an opponent that owns the media? Oh, and also habitually commits election fraud? I guess you can, but you have to beat them by a much greater margin than if it were a fair match.

A few weeks ago the Conservatives and their cadres of pundits were bursting with glee at Mulcair "self-destructing" by criticizing the tar sands. Given opportunity to backtrack, Mulcair pressed on, showing conviction and resolve (and also reassuring some of his critics from the leadership campaign). Against Conservative expectations, Mulcair and the party became more popular. I think this perhaps has shocked and confused Conservative strategists into inaction for the moment. It won't last, but right now they're acting as though for the first time they don't know how to effectively respond to an opponent.

It is a very big problem, to have an opponent who can manipulate the 'news' and the tone of it as well. I notice they try like heck to bury damning items - for instance a couple of weeks ago they pretty successfully relegated another election fraud story to the middle pages. In a way it was good because it opened my friend's eyes a bit. He was very outraged by this particular incident of fraud and tried to follow the story. At first he didn't believe that Harper's goons could get their claws into the editors of web pages and news desks but after searching and searching for info on what he thought should have been a front page story he started to get the picture that perhaps it was true: the government (or their friends) do in fact have a say in what gets coverage.

Which also means, for the first time in this country, I'm actually beginning to worry about "lone nuts."

How so?

[Jeff]

Which also means, for the first time in this country, I'm actually beginning to worry about "lone nuts."

How so?

Overarching reason: if they'll steal elections, of what else are these people capable? If they're desperate enough, and they have the means, I think they have the will to try just about anything to retain power. And beyond that, I also worry about how the CPC and its media (especially The Sun) is overstimulating its excitable and well-armed base with hate speech. All that poison pumped into the air can have consequences.

BTW:

Election result challenge in federal court today

The Federal Court of Canada is hearing a motion to dismiss a challenge to the 2011 election results in seven ridings.

The applicants, backed by the Council of Canadians, want the Federal Court to overturn the results because of allegations of misleading phone calls that attempted to send voters to the wrong polling stations.

The Conservative Party of Canada filed a motion today that says the applicants haven't presented any evidence that people didn't vote as a result of the phone calls, arguing the case has no chance of success.

...

[Jeff]

The Conservatives just launched this attack ad:

[Canadian_watcher]

wtf is that bit at :12 on the vid "make them pay now for what they're doing!"

I guess you were right, tho.. Mulcair scares them.

wait.. I forgot to respond to this:

Overarching reason: if they'll steal elections, of what else are these people capable?

true..
and I keep coming back to the Contempt of Parliament thing. After that, why were they even allowed ro run the same candidates? Why did ANYONE vote for them? With a system like this, does anyone actually need to propagandize anymore?

[JackRiddler]

The Conservatives just launched this attack ad:

So, um, the NDP's in government now is it?

Why not, it's not unlike the US right-wing blaming Carter 20 years later, or Obama for the recession before he was even elected. Furthermore, this country has been destroyed by the liberal media and the lack of manners and discipline among the young.

What's the context? Is there an actual election happening somewhere? How else are the NDP to be made to pay NOW?

[Jeff]

What's the context? Is there an actual election happening somewhere? How else are the NDP to be made to pay NOW?

Context is the Conservatives are always on war-footing; It doesn't matter there's no election for another three years.

Before the last election was called, the Conservatives ran attack ads against Liberal leader Ignatieff ("He didn't come back for you"), and the one before that, against Liberal leader Dion ("Not a leader.") The Liberals didn't counter either time, Conservatives defined their main rival, and it stuck.

Within days of Mulcair's victory, the NDP preemptively launched a counter-attack, to introduce him outside of the Conservative frame:



I think that, but mostly Mulcair's strong start, has helped.

BTW, that "Make them pay now for what they're doing" line is a Mulcair quote lifted out of context. He was talking about the tar sands polluters.

[Jeff]

The Conservative ad is part of this campaign:

http://mulcairsndp.ca/

It showcases members of the NDP shadow cabinet in Halloween colours. (For some reason, the photos of the men are tinted orange and the women green.)

One member of Mr. Muclair’s team is Andrew Cash, a spokesman on Canadian Heritage. Mr. Cash supports Occupy Toronto’s plans to replace Canada’s economic system with radical alternatives.

Mr. Mulcair’s International Trade Critic is Romeo Saganash. In 1991 Mr. Saganash refused to rule out the possibility of an armed uprising as a method [for the James Bay Cree] of dealing with the question of Quebec independence.

For the key role of Treasury Board critic Mr. Mulcair selected Mathieu Ravignat. Mr. Ravignat has a history with radicals. In fact he ran for the Communist Party of Canada in the 1997 election.

Mr. Mulcair’s immigration critic is Jinny Sims. Before running for the NDP Ms. Sims was known for her time as the “radical teachers' union president who led a two-week-long illegal strike.”

As his Chief Opposition Whip Mr. Mulcair chose Nycole Turmel. Ms. Turmel, a self-described “socialist” (Hansard, June 25, 2011) is the former boss of a major government employees union.

Mr. Mulcair chose longtime union boss Peggy Nash as his finance critic. Ms. Nash was described as “the furthest left” of the major NDP leadership candidates.

Terrifying!

Amateurish, but they're not trying to manipulate a very sophisticated demographic.

[Canadian_watcher]

BTW, that "Make them pay now for what they're doing" line is a Mulcair quote lifted out of context. He was talking about the tar sands polluters.

Ahh.. you see it kind of came off like it was being attributed to Mulcair, but at the same time it didn't. Sneaky. And apropos of your earlier comment, it strikes me as a sort of lone-nut bait in the same way that the rifle sight targets were in Palin's campaign shortly before Giffords was shot.

Jack, even though we'v e been living through the 'constant campaign' in Canada since Harper got the leadership years ago it still surprises and disgusts me to see election style attack ads out of season.