Something to keep in mind when protesting is that the government, by definition, has a monopoly on legal violence. Although, the government is supposed to guarantee rights like freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, quite often, people who work for the state would much rather that people didn’t exercise those rights. Let’s call it a look but don’t touch brand of democracy.
Somewhat infuriatingly, there are people who demand to use their rights. The state is left with a dilemma, what to do with people that they don’t like but haven’t broken the law. Well, if the protesters were to attack the police, then the police could crackdown on the protest and the protesters. However, what happens if none of the protesters want to attack the police? Obviously, you put some undercover cops in the crowd to attack the police. Problem solved. It takes the chance bit right out of it. Also, it is extraordinarily useful because the state will go after the leaders. Obviously, the leaders of the protest were inciting violence because it happened ipso facto.
All is well, unless someone notices what the state is up to. Which is what happened in Quebec. Here is the video.
The Quebec police even admitted that the three they arrested were cops. Although, the police denied that the three were there to instigate violence.
Police said the three undercover officers were only at the protest to locate and identify non-peaceful protesters in order to prevent any incidents.
Exactly, that is why they picked up the rocks and refused to drop them. Although, I love how the police department tried to spin it.
Police said the three were told to monitor protesters who were not peacefully demonstrating to prevent any violent incidents, but they were called out as undercover agents when they refused to throw objects.
If Canada really wants to become a police state then they should learn from their neighbors to the South and set up “free-speech zones.” Basically, the state builds a prison and tells all the protesters that if they want to exercise their rights, they have to go inside. It is much more efficient.
On a more serious note, there cannot be any serious debate on this topic. Unrelenting ridicule is the only civil solution for those that willingly spout absurdities. Those that believe that this is isolated, deny or apologize for it need to open their eyes. Situations like this are written about in “The Grapes of Wrath” and the precedent likely goes back much further.
Update: A few things that I didn’t address. The fact these guys were wearing the same issue boots as the cops. I believe the boots were a way to reliably identify the cops from the regular protesters during the crackdown. It is not really a reflection of their intelligence since I don’t think anyone would have noticed if they hadn’t been caught or weren’t aware of police tactics. It is not a case of these guys not thinking about their foot apparel.
The last thing is the probability the people that they picked up were not the cops is ludicrous. I realize the police statement left some ambiguity to the issue. Given 1) They weren’t charged. 2) The boot issue. 3) Their behavior of going into the police line as opposed to leaving. 4) How protective of their identity they were to the other protesters, but obviously not scared of getting caught by the police (which is the exact opposite behavior we’d expect). There are likely others. But the conclusion is the that there is no reasonable doubt that these guys were cops. The ambiguity is just a word game and reading more into it is giving them too much credit.