[OT] Re:Byron Sonne....

[Digimer]

On 02/26/2011 07:47 AM, ted leslie wrote:
> In the brief amount i followed this when it happened,
> is it not simply the case that he baited law-enforcement,
> took resources away from making sure Canadians were secure,
> and thus his actions put us all in danger, and he needs a much
> deserved stay at the big house?(or some psychological help?)
>  I know some people think
> what he did was obviously a joke, but the law can't make
> that assumption, as if he actually did in the end
> do (aid) in something, heads would roll and the people
> would get very upset. I hope he gets a few months
> a the health spa (we call the Canadian prison/jail system)
> (and time already served counted), and he hopefully
> will realize what he did was just so stupid.
> He is just lucky in the end there wasn't a "action" at the
> G20, and his mis-steering of important resources didn't result
> in getting innocent people getting killed, but, it could
> have been the case, and I am sure he wouldn't be
> too proud of that. Now I understand how he was treated
> after the fact, may be the main concern here (his rights),
> but personally what he did was so stupid, I am glad he
> got put through the ringer. If we had many people like him
> in this country, then we would be totally screwed, as our
> security people wouldn't be able to do any sort of job.
> 
> Having said all this, I know little about the case, just the high
> level stuff spoken on here and in the news (on tv) at the time.
> I would hope that if his actions were misunderstood,
> and there was "mistakes" in the system,  did he not
> get a warning, which he ignored?
> 
> I guess my main concern is, if he really did
> detour resources, and in general the authorities
> had to take with even 1% possibility, that he may
> in fact have been plotting (or aiding in something),
> seems to me, it all went down as it should have,
> and the system handled it correctly and we can
> take great pride in the system.
> 
> I am sure if there is more to the story, facts i need to know
> that would show me in fact in no way did he do anything to
> taught/deceive/detour law-enforcement, I am guessing
> people will be posting it here.  But my main issue is, if
> he detoured resources (even if morally  wrong, not directly legally
> wrong), he should pay,
> as if everyone did that, we  would be SOL as a country.
> 
> tl

It is impossible for me to answer anything you've said here without
violating the publication ban. I will say that you are not alone in
feeling the way you do, and I will even go so far as to say that, as the
story has been told, I couldn't fault you for feeling that way.

That said, the facts of this case are not public. What led to Byron
getting arrested certainly isn't out there. The reason he was treated so
harshly and even what "harshly" is in this case is all still under the
pub ban.

So let me speak in generalities rather that this case specifically.

First and foremost, everyone in this country is innocent until proven
guilty. The statements you have made depend entirely on the assumption
that he is, in fact, guilty.

Next, in a democracy, there is the right to decent. Arguably, ever
protester diverted resources away from security of the fence. I know I
am being extreme with this, but would you say that every one of the
1,100 protester deserved be kettled, arrested and held? 900 of which
were never charged in the end. Most of the remaining have had their
charges thrown out. A collective period in time where the police actions
were described by the Ontario Ombudsman as the worst violation of civil
liberties in Canadian history?

The reason I am arguing this point is because "Security", "National
Security" and "Safety" are very common crutches of wrong-doing nations.
An extreme, blank-and-white example is how Gaddafi is cracking down
violently on the Libyan people justifying it with "public safety". I
doubt you or any other rational person would disagree at the terrible
atrocities being committed there and that "national security" is
hand-waving his desire to stay in power.

So what then of the middle ground? How does a person, who sees what they
perceive to be a corrupt or broken system, make their voices heard? Now
what if that person has hobbies well outside the norm, like amateur
science? How does a person make a political statement on what he or she
sees as an over-bearing security system that has crossed a line?

Back to Byron's case; I assure you, there is much, much more to this
story. The details will not come out until the publication ban has been
lifted, which will be when the trial begins (or ends, depending).

A final statement on your last comment;

A "free" country is not, inherently, a safe country. A free country is
one where individuals are free from oppression by the government. It
means being free from illegal detention, illegal search and seizure. To
this end, our legal system is supposed to be one where it is better to
let a guilty person go free than an innocent person be sent to jail. By
that fact, every time a guilty person goes free, the country is less
safe. It is a trade-off we decided to make when we, as a country,
decided that "Freedom" was more important than "Safety".

-- 
Digimer
E-Mail: digimer-5ZoueyuiTZhBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org
AN!Whitepapers: http://alteeve.com
Node Assassin:  http://nodeassassin.org
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists