[Videos] Charlie Veitch at the G20

[damania]

I've put together footage of Charlie Veitch on the megaphone at the G20. Also included are the moments right before he was arrested.

http://www.askbutwhy.com/2010/06/charlie-veitchs-street-performance-at.html (http://www.askbutwhy.com/2010/06/charlie-veitchs-street-performance-at.html)

[damania]

Charlie's UK videos are hilarious too! His youtube channel is: http://www.youtube.com/user/cveitch

[Vessol]

He's obviously a property-hating Marxist, I bet all those videos are full of him destroying property. The police were right in arresting him.

[surf]

as someone that experienced the "Battle in Seattle" (WTO) a few years back i can tell you that the police take the opposite approach of what they should: rather than protecting businesses they take up weapons and do battle with peaceful as well as destructive protestors. it becomes us against them. had i been the Seattle chief of police i would have positioned a cop about every 10 feet on the sidewalks and instructed them to arrest any destructive pricks that busted a window or vandalized property in any way.

instead they turned on the people and acted like soldiers doing battle - i remember them marching up in a line and "taking" Capital Hill, Belltown, etc. while ensuring that no one got near the protected pimps discussing WTO crap.

[John Taylor]

He's obviously a property-hating Marxist, I bet all those videos are full of him destroying property. The police were right in arresting him.

He's not, and I'm not convinced the police were.

You really love speaking in generalities, don't you?

[Vessol]

He's not, and I'm not convinced the police were.

You really love speaking in generalities, don't you?

You said that everyone protesting there is socialist rabble.

[John Taylor]

You said that everyone protesting there is socialist rabble.

No, I did not say that everyone protesting there is socialist rabble, but most of them are Marxists who favor the violent redistribution of property by government, yes.

[Vessol]

No, I did not say that everyone protesting there is socialist rabble, but most of them are Marxists who favor the violent redistribution of property by government, yes.

And the tiny minority were violent protesters. Whom the police let waltz in and make a good photo ops before they waltzed back out.

While peaceful protesters like this man are arrested and attacked.

I don't mean to be rude, but my opinion on the police is very low. I wouldn't put anything past them that gives them an opportunity for a good photo shoot and to make an excuse to keep their huge budget. And if that means sending out agent provocateurs out into the streets in order to justify their job, then I wouldn't put it past them. Anyone in power wants to maintain that power.

[John Taylor]

And the tiny minority were violent protesters. Whom the police let waltz in and make a good photo ops before they waltzed back out.

While peaceful protesters like this man are arrested and attacked.

I don't mean to be rude, but my opinion on the police is very low. I wouldn't put anything past them that gives them an opportunity for a good photo shoot and to make an excuse to keep their huge budget.

The tiny minority? Really? 600 out of 10,000 is a pretty high number for a "tiny minority" isn't it?

How was this man "attacked"??? He refused to identify himself, as the law requires.

[Vessol]

So what the law says is what we should follow?

The law allows a cop to search my house without a warrant. Too bad for me.

[John Taylor]

So what the law says is what we should follow?

The law allows a cop to search my house without a warrant. Too bad for me.

No, I didn't say that we should follow all laws, but laws requiring people to identify themselves on public property when demonstrating does not seem to violate any Canadian constitutional provision I am aware of.

The Constitution does not allow the police to search your house without a warrant. They can only make a localized search for weapons in your house if they are in your house pursuant to a valid warrant for your arrest based upon probable cause determined by an impartial magistrate.

[Vessol]

Your views on this video?

YouTube - True News: The 'Violence' of the G20 Protests (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZJIzWbOzdw)

[tremendoustie]

He's obviously a property-hating Marxist, I bet all those videos are full of him destroying property. The police were right in arresting him.

Actually, not at all. I've never seen him destroy any property. He's anti-consumerist and corporatist, but I certainly don't think he's Marxist.

Search for "everything is ok" on youtube for more vids.

And of course the police are not right to arrest someone simply for not showing ID. Did I click onto authoritarianists.com by mistake or something?

[John Taylor]

Your views on this video?

YouTube - True News: The 'Violence' of the G20 Protests (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZJIzWbOzdw)

I'm sorry, I don't have 17 minutes to watch this video for a few days, it'll be until after the 8th before I have a chance to sit down and watch it. (Have a crap ton of pleadings and summary judgment motions to write and file, and one nasty appeal to the 9th circuit). I'll get back to you as soon as I have a chance to review it.

[tremendoustie]

No, I didn't say that we should follow all laws, but laws requiring people to identify themselves on public property when demonstrating does not seem to violate any Canadian constitutional provision I am aware of.

It's blatantly immoral to demand personal information, on threat of violence, from somebody who's harming nobody and nothing.

[John Taylor]

And of course the police are not right to arrest someone simply for not showing ID. Did I click onto authoritarianists.com by mistake or something?

Actually, in a situation like Toronto this past week, I don't have any problem with the police determining the identity of people. This guy is a visitor to Toronto and needs to abide by their laws, or refrain from entering the city.

[John Taylor]

it's blatantly immoral to demand personal information, on threat of violence, from somebody who's harming nobody and nothing.

anarchy in the uk!!!

Immoral? I don't think so. Why is it immoral to ask someone in the midst of a group of people committing felonies to identify themselves?

[tremendoustie]

How was this man "attacked"???


If I went around with a gun demanding personal information from people, locking any who refuse in handcuffs, and dragging them away, everyone, including you, would be quite capable of recognizing that I was attacking people.

Wearing a funny blue outfit with a piece of metal doesn't magically make it ok.



He refused to identify himself, as the law requires.

The law doesn't magically make immoral things moral. It used to be against federal law to help escaped slaves. Do you use your own brain, or do you just blindly follow whatever dictats some politician happens to write down?

[tremendoustie]

anarchy in the uk!!!

Immoral? I don't think so. Why is it immoral to ask someone in the midst of a group of people committing felonies to identify themselves?

There's nothing wrong with asking. Kidnapping a person who's harming nobody and nothing if they refuse to answer is very immoral.

You'd have no trouble recognizing that fact if the people doing the kidnapping weren't wearing magical blue outfits.

And "in the midst of a group of people committing felonies" is not only irrelevant, but a huge distortion of the situation, as you must know.

[tremendoustie]

Actually, in a situation like Toronto this past week, I don't have any problem with the police determining the identity of people. This guy is a visitor to Toronto and needs to abide by their laws, or refrain from entering the city.

The police don't own the city, and have no right to demand personal information from everyone who enters it.

[John Taylor]

The police don't own the city, and have no right to demand personal information from everyone who enters it.

Legal requirements to disclose one's identity go back hundreds of years in the common law, and are common-sensical. I don't think it is a breach of individual liberty for a peace officer to ask someone on a public street to identify themselves. This man held the keys to the dungeon in his own hands... he merely needed to notify, and he could walk away to rejoin his Marxist buddies.

[tremendoustie]

Legal requirements to disclose one's identity go back hundreds of years in the common law,


Slavery went back thousands of years.



and are common-sensical.


No, the government does not need the capability to demand identification from anyone at any time. We used to make fun of the russians for this kind of B.S.

Seriously, is this still rpf?

Papers please!



I don't think it is a breach of individual liberty for a peace officer to ask someone on a public street to identify themselves.


Once again, with the euphemisms. Asking is fine. Dragging away in handcuffs is not.



This man held the keys to the dungeon in his own hands... he merely needed to notify,

The oldest trick in the statist book. "You chose to be arrested, because you didn't follow my arbitrary diktats"

No, he chose to act like a free man, and the cop decided to use violence on him for it.

I'd love to see how this defense would fly if I started going around with a gun kidnapping people who didn't give me personal info. "But judge, this person held the key to their dungeon in their own hands! He merely needed to give me his personal information!"

Maybe muggers who kill people, could use it too, when brought up on murder charges. "But judge, this person held the trigger in his own hands! If he didn't want to get killed, he should have handed over his wallet!"



and he could walk away to rejoin his Marxist buddies.

Another baseless smear. I've been watching this guy's videos on and off for months. He's no big government wealth redistributionist.