An invoice obtained through a federal Access to Information request allows Canada’s National Observer to reveal a report commissioned by the RCMP, spying on activists' online activities
“The underlying problem here is that the RCMP is presuming that a person who is engaged in environmental activism, necessarily, is a higher risk for engaging in criminal behaviour — that somehow, that you’re voicing dissent, that you pose a risk of criminality,” Jack said, “and that that gives the police the authority to be investigating you, following you, collecting information about you.”
@NightOwl the previous d. Superintendant for New Brunswick have brought this up. the RCMP should never be a personal goon squad for a government, church, or industry. … yet they whine go full defcon crybaby when they get defunded.
And dont fall for the apologies. the minister for public safety is not sorry for the harm they inflicted. they are sorry they got caught.
One time, many moons ago, when I was a young a naive student: I dared to counter protest a student union led protest that I disagreed with. I was polite, non-distuptive, and some distance away from the group.
I got reported to campus security for irrational behaviour by someone, which then caused them to go digging. I had been writing editorials for the campus newspaper and they were in the newspaper offices trying to dig up dirt (my editor let me know).
I have no idea whether there is such as thing as due process and such when dealing with campus security (they aren’t really police), but at the time I felt violated. I was expressing a political opinion in the most democratic way I could, and someone gunned for me in response. I don’t blame security for doing their job, I blame whomever maliciously contrived a report to make them act.
That said, this story is clearly written slanted towards the ACAB angle. I think more digging is required by the journalist here. What was the actual perceived threat.
(And yes, ecoterrorism is a thing, so perhaps there were concerns, real or imagined.)
I understand why you felt violated and I’m sorry that happened to you. I think it’s odd you seem to attribute none of the violation to campus security. You describe them as passively compelled to follow up on a complaint about a student’s (I’m presuming reasonable) on-campus behaviour by going into the student newspaper office they worked in and reading their work. But they chose to do that. They could have handled things differently, such as talk to you versus snoop like they did or dismiss you as a non-threat
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
@NightOwl the previous d. Superintendant for New Brunswick have brought this up. the RCMP should never be a personal goon squad for a government, church, or industry. … yet they whine go full defcon crybaby when they get defunded.
And dont fall for the apologies. the minister for public safety is not sorry for the harm they inflicted. they are sorry they got caught.
the woke Elders of THE CABAL OF ARGUS
We will see
:wq
We don’t violate your civil liberties, that’s what we pay these guys to do!
One time, many moons ago, when I was a young a naive student: I dared to counter protest a student union led protest that I disagreed with. I was polite, non-distuptive, and some distance away from the group.
I got reported to campus security for irrational behaviour by someone, which then caused them to go digging. I had been writing editorials for the campus newspaper and they were in the newspaper offices trying to dig up dirt (my editor let me know).
I have no idea whether there is such as thing as due process and such when dealing with campus security (they aren’t really police), but at the time I felt violated. I was expressing a political opinion in the most democratic way I could, and someone gunned for me in response. I don’t blame security for doing their job, I blame whomever maliciously contrived a report to make them act.
That said, this story is clearly written slanted towards the ACAB angle. I think more digging is required by the journalist here. What was the actual perceived threat.
(And yes, ecoterrorism is a thing, so perhaps there were concerns, real or imagined.)
I understand why you felt violated and I’m sorry that happened to you. I think it’s odd you seem to attribute none of the violation to campus security. You describe them as passively compelled to follow up on a complaint about a student’s (I’m presuming reasonable) on-campus behaviour by going into the student newspaper office they worked in and reading their work. But they chose to do that. They could have handled things differently, such as talk to you versus snoop like they did or dismiss you as a non-threat
Red chot milli peppers