Saturday, April 10, 2010

Police Refusing To Protect Free Speech Rights Of Some?

National Post...

A member of the detail responsible for security of Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa:
It was clear to us, from the way the message was relayed, that the directive was coming from a much greater power than that of those who were delivering the message; Senior Police Officials, Senior Campus Officials, or maybe even Senior Politicians... No one really knew quite where the message was coming from but the end result was clear - hands off at any cost or face criminal prosecution should you challenge the directive.

 In other words, Ms. Coulter's bodyguards were told, in no uncertain terms, that they cannot protect her, period, and if they took any measures to protect her from harm, they'd "face criminal prosecution".


Clearly there MUST necessarily be high-level interference here.  Seems like some high-level folks would like to see harm come to the non-politically-correct boat-rocker...
The tampering of vehicles, malicious damage, or even a planned attack around the principals’ vehicle is always a concern for any Protective Detail, so just to make absolute certain that our vehicles were safe, the topic was discussed with the Officer in Charge.  He too assured us that our vehicles would be taken care of and kept safe.

He was correct! Our vehicles were looked after alright, by about 50 “battle ready” protesters who had surrounded our vehicles circling about them plotting and planning their mode of attack for when we should return to our SUVs.

The intended plan of the Campus Security and the Calgary Police Service was this.  Their recommendation was to move the main principal out of the hall, under Police guard, to an alternate location near the main venue, while two members of our detail obtained the principal vehicles (meaning they would have to “make their way” through the crowd of protestors), and make their way back (seemingly undetected?), to the alternate location.  When I read their plan I felt as though we were being set up to fail. I reminded Calgary Police Service and Campus Security that we had been instructed on what would happen should any of our Team Members lay a hand on anyone; engage in physical confrontation with anyone - we would be the ones arrested and charged. In the plan they gave us we would have walked right into a volatile situation had we retrieved our cars in the midst of all the protestors.

The Calgary Police and the Campus Security personnel refused to move the protestors away from our vehicles. 

What a huge difference from the way they treat Christians simply standing individually, peacefully, maybe holding Bibles (no law against that, but it's sure politically incorrect) , anywhere near abortion clinics or homosexually-themed events in public places.  Like, if one is Christian, one has no rights at all relative to certain politically-exalted groups, but dangerous mobs of hard-left-wing extremists threatening violence and spewing hatred and contempt must be allowed to do whatever they want, and offend and intimidate people?  Oh, and, by the way, yes, Ann Coulter is Christian.  Hmm...  What, is it all about "keeping Christians in their place, being seen but not heard"?

Of bloody course there's political interference with law enforcement.  This isn't something that gets talked about enough (unless the politicians being accused of interference happen to be non-leftist, ie. Republican/Conservative), let alone investigated.  I sincerely do believe, from years of observing the inconsistencies in the behavior of police in maintaining law and order, that they are indeed subject to politically-charged directives that prevent them from doing their job or even cause them to break the law and violate peoples' rights.  And this is frequently done so in a discriminatory manner, and in favor of those in favor with the "progressive" movement and against those not in favor with same.

The police can only do their job as they know how according to their training and the law and the Constitution, but sometimes they cannot, when ordered by very powerful people, to "stand down" and allow the law to be broken and peoples' rights to be violated by suddenly-specially-exempt, generally-homogeneous-in-political-ideology public-mob members.  It all depends on whether the police have (as they should always) free rein to use their own judgement and training according to the law and the rights of everyone... or whether they're being constrained via politically-charged directives.  This must be publicly discussed and investigated, because, clearly, something is very wrong here.

Reminds me of how police look the other way whilst specially-exalted-politically groups break the law.  Like how they look the other way when Aboriginal protestors destroy property and assault non-Aboriginals, and when gay men are naked, willies exposed, in the gay parades, with children as witnesses.  In such situations, the police obviously are under orders to let 'em do as they please.  What, do they have to start murdering people before the police are allowed to do anything?

In the case of the Coulter visit to the U of O, it's clear that the crazy, obviously-potentially-dangerous "protestors" were the specially-exalted-politically group whom certain "higher-ups" wanted to see "left alone" to "enjoy their "rights"" (meaning break the law and intimidate Ms. Coulter)... perhaps because they wished harm to come to Ann Coulter because she's a dissident from the fascist orthodoxy of political correctness.

Indeed, Liberal Fascism is alive and well in Canada.  It's a bit more subtle compared to how it works in the Non-Free World, but it's now obvious to longtime observers who can see the pattern and logically deduce that the only way this pattern could be possible is that either police discriminate, selectively upholding and ignoring the law depending on who are the players, and get away with it... or they're just following illegal, unconstitutional orders from superiors, perhaps politicians, who themselves get away with it, largely due to the "looking the other way" on the part of the Big Media (talk about "manufacturing consent", eh!).

No comments: