Lies about the OAS, and some true stuff too!
This was all taken from the Windsor Star, and shows just how one sided the newspaper really is. Note for instance that most of the pictures were taken from behind the police line. They continue to bed with politicians at the expense of truth and one day I hope will see that what they are publishing is not in fact a newspaper, but a form of government propaganda.
an article from day 2: There have been 53 OAS-related arrests, 45 of which were for breach of peace, a section of the Criminal Code that allows the police to detain protesters for 24 hours without formal charges. Of the 45 people held for breach of peace, 35 were detained following attempts Sunday afternoon to block a bus carrying OAS delegates on Riverside Drive. OAS Shutdown Coalition leaders say the breach of peace charge was used to detain protesters for otherwise innocent activities, like carrying bottles of water or jaywalking.
These were the eight people out of the total arrests that were mentioned in the paper, an obvious smear campaign against the protesters:
David Solnit, a 36-year-old Californian, was arrested early Sunday morning on an immigration warrant related to a 14-year-old criminal conviction for mischief. Solnit used washable paint to write the names of Nicaraguans killed by U.S.-backed Contras on the windows of a military recruiting office in 1986. He believes police used his mischief conviction to revoke his status as a legal visitor to Canada. Solnit is being held in the Windsor Jail. His first hearing is scheduled this morning.
Arthur Foelsche, a 24-year-old student from Vermont, was picked up on his way to breakfast Sunday morning on an immigration warrant. He was to appear in Toronto on an unrelated immigration matter later this month and he believes his arrest is related. Immigration officials say he will likely have his first hearing Wednesday, but they would not elaborate on the reason for his detention.
Kyle Patton, 24, from Guelph, was detained Saturday evening for violating a condition of his release on a previous charge. He promised not to participate in demonstrations, but was picked up downtown following an impromptu gathering. He was released from the Windsor Jail on $1,400 cash bail Monday afternoon.
A 16-year-old young offender from Mississauga was arrested at about 1 p.m. Saturday for possession of a prohibited weapon. He was wearing a punk-style studded bracelet, which is among the weapons banned by the Criminal Code.
Josh Shook, of Guelph, was arrested for mischief near the riverfront after Sunday's rally.
Jason Ellis, from Ohio, was arrested Sunday morning near the Ambassador Bridge for possession of a prohibited weapon, a switchblade. He was remanded in custody at the Windsor Jail.
An unidentified activist was arrested for trespassing early Friday morning after he was found in Dieppe Gardens. He was released soon afterward without charges.
This was an 'article' about a social leader. With no facts at all they attack this woman, downplay her role as a leader and publicly declared her an anarchist trouble maker who was just here to cause trouble, violently. Such strong words from this reporter who backed them up with no facts and apparently didn't do his research kinda makes me want to give him a kick in the ass (yes that would be violent my friend). If we look at this article we can see that is was systematically arranged to downplay the importance of protest and to make the protesters look like evil people, while the city and the police were knights in shining armour.
Why did it take so much muscle to protect the annual meeting of the Organization of American States, they wondered -- a group most people hadn't heard of until last week? (okay, first of all, what's with the punctuation?) Was such a show of para-military force really necessary in a peaceful country like Canada?
The answer to the second question, unfortunately, is yes. And part of the reason lies in the frustrated politics (what do you think he means by that?) of people like Maude Barlow, chair of the Council of Canadians.
It sounds so patriotic, the Council of Canadians. (I love that line, you can feel the cynicism and disgust) But as Barlow has revealed, it harbors at least one extreme and angry view of the world. (What is it?)
In an interview, Barlow stopped just short of advocating violence against police and mass destruction of private property.
(okay so normally a news report would require you back up a statement like that with some quotes, or at least a date and name of publisher of said interview, but this leads me to wonder if there ever was such an interview, and if there was was it taken completely out of context, he surely didn't want the reader to decide if that's the case.)
Barlow said she was shocked by the "brutality" (quotation marks=lie) shown by police when she took part in a protest on the streets of Windsor on Sunday. "It was like nothing I've ever seen," said Barlow, who took part in recent clashes (nice power word!) on the streets of Seattle and Washington.
With the exception of pepper-spraying two photographers, the 2,200 police officers protecting the foreign ministers of the Windsor OAS summit behaved with commendable professionalism and restraint, considering the provocations they faced from protesters who pitched rocks and taunts while trying to damage vehicles and block traffic. (okay this has problems for a couple of reasons; first-how many rocks were there to how many police, I'm sure the 4 or 5 rocks that were thrown was in no way a threat to the whole police force on hand, especially when they're wearing riot gear. second-how come it's okay to pepper spray people who are having sit ins on the sidewalk, peacefully singing, and people who were just dancing around, I mean unless they were like line dancing I don't see them as being a danger to anyone, and how about those people who we're not even there to protest, they were just walking around
checking out an event that was more exciting than those lame concerts the city puts on? Oh I guess it's okay to pepper spray them, but you better leave those Windsor Star guys alone! That's quite possibly the dumbest thing in this whole article. I mean two of their own guys got pepper sprayed and they still don't see a problem? Third-taunts? Hello, sticks and stones, my friend, since when did it become illegal to yell at cops? Fourth-Damage vehicles? with what? rocks? It's not like they were storming around with crowbars and baseball bats! I mean I seen allot of those people and very few of them looked like they could wreck a vehicle with a couple rocks, a screwdriver, or a studded bracelet or any of that other stuff they say were weapons. And maybe it's just me, but I mean the cops had guns, this tanky thing, trucks, jeeps, pepper spray, Billie-clubs, give me a couple rocks to if I see that staring back at me, and hey, the rocks were probably free!)
It was supposed to have been much worse -- and it would have been, had police not been organized and put up such a show of force. As well, hundreds of the more dangerous U.S. political troublemakers (um, I think the word you were looking for was protesters, wasn't it?) were turned back at the border, their tools of vandalism confiscated. (apparently tools of vandalism include anything needed to repair your house, car, or a bad meal)
Which brings us back to why the ominous number of police surrounding the OAS conference was necessary. (oh-yeah, that was the point of this article, you were going to single handedly give us an official explanation without even asking the government for their answer.)
According to Barlow, the kind of rampaging mob violence which caused millions of dollars in damage to downtown Seattle is a justifiable expression of political opinion if people refuse to see the world the way she does. (I know you work for a paper, so you should have access to these kind of things, but did you miss the news the day of the protest in Seattle? Well I'll tell you about it, the riot police were all nervous, a couple young guys got a little jumpy, one of them lost control, without permission and attacked a protester who admittedly was getting in his face, then all hell broke loose. Research, my friend)
The way police kept the peace in Windsor, on the other hand, was "brutal" (why is this always in quotation marks?) because it denied her and the anarchists the chance to make a statement to the world by violently preventing other people from conducting public business. (um, I think the point was to stand in the middle of the street so their cars, or vans couldn't get to the meeting, not much violent about that!)
While Barlow acknowledges that the anarchist movement (the anarchist movement? okay anarchists don't want any rule, blah, blah, blah, how do they organize a movement? The very fact that these people are coming out to protests would tend to imply that they are anything but, but they already hunted after the commies right?) brings a dangerous element to demonstrations, she refuses to condemn the actions: "I don't approve of violence, there are times when I have an understanding of it." (This is an out of context quote and it's so obvious. I have an understanding of violence in certain situations as well; if some one could've killed Hitler earlier so many Jewish people would not have died, if I knew some one was oppressing people and putting others lives at danger or children into slavery I would surely rejoice if I heard that some one had "brutally" beaten them to death.)
While Barlow's son is a police officer in Ottawa and she worries about his safety, she says that she must continue to support protesters who are able to attract public attention through "direct action." (wow, now let's make her look like a bad mother, we will surely alienate her from our readers after this!)
The Council of Canadians says its 100,000 members are "building stronger communities and a just Canada."
They could start by demanding that Barlow resign for her views on violence and property damage. (well Canada's kinda got it's head up it's ass right now, and I think it would be a good start to get it back on track if we should ask you to resign from writing anything again and maybe move to central America for a while until you get some appreciation of what the hell people go to protests for. I mean if those are Barlow's views at least she's not hiding behind some newspaper article that personally I think might have been writing by a ten year on facts gathered by the mayors office.) Canadian taxpayers shouldn't have to spend millions of dollars to protect themselves and their guests from hooligans. (maybe not, but it wasn't our choice, we'd told the government we didn't need that much protection for the event, they got it anyway. On another note, it is funny that you make a declaration about what Canadians have to protect themselves from, it seems to me that you are the enemy, my friend. Canadians should be able to trust their newspapers as a source of truth, but over and over again articles like this prove that theory completely wrong.
P.S.-Please don't take any of this personally, It is a review of an article, I in no way intend this as a personal attack, for all I know somebody might have made you write it.)