Documents reveal Toronto police monitored the Black Lives Matter movement

Toronto police monitored Black Lives Matter activists and their supporters, combing through social media and compiling intelligence email reports on the activist group as it camped outside police headquarters in 2016, according to documents obtained by CBC Toronto.

The documents, released by the Toronto Police Service (TPS) in response to a freedom of information request, show officers in the police service's intelligence branch monitored the group's demonstrations, public comments and planned events.

"Black activists, particularly, are targeted and surveilled," said Black Lives Matter Toronto co-founder Pascale Diverlus.

"We know that this happens. The targeting and surveillance of our communities is not new."

Black Lives Matter began an encampment outside police headquarters after a demonstration on March 20, 2016. The demonstration was sparked in part by the Special Investigations Unit's decisionto clear a Toronto police officer of wrongdoing in the fatal 2015 shooting of Andrew Loku.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


So still no evidence and basically claiming that the conviction was wrong

wow

I didn't say the conviction was wrong - can you point to the post where I said that?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't say the conviction was wrong - can you point to the post where I said that?

You certainly are, when they were convicted of a racist murder.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I wonder.  Canada is in-between British and American.  We know American police are politically motivated--they never think to keep after the KKK or white nationalist groups, yet always with the blacks--but from what you say (UKIP and BNP) there is less political bias in the UK.

Also, reading this, I didn't know Canada had a FOIA law??

Are they politically motivated?

How do you think the Police arrest and prosecute white nationalists and KKK, that commit crimes?

The fact is, that Black lives matter is essentially a racist organisation. Which certainly does have extremists within the organisation

As all lives matter and more whites are actually shot  by the Police. Hardly any asians are, because hardly any compared to whites and blacks, are involved in violent crimes.

You want to cure these problems of crime. Then you tackle relative poverty

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Sorry didge.  You're the abject racist.  Like others, you deliberately fail to acknowledge the serious genocide carried on by American police departments upon young black men.

It is akin to those who deny, or fail to recognize the holocaust.  You would think, due to the similarities, you could sympathize with blacks.  Instead, you join with the racists.  Shame!  It's your blackest hour.

Okay, you claim I am racist?

Many people are shot by the Police, mainly those classed as white and black

Many cops are also killed in the line of duty

This is what is called an circular problem

More cops are killed by black criminals in the acts of violence

More whites are killed in the acts of criminality by the Police

Percentage wise Blacks are killed more often wise based on the number of black people in the US

What this negates, is that percentage wise, more blacks are involved in crimes than whites per population. Even though whites commit more crimes per say

You then invoke what i can only describe as idiotic and fucking ignorant, to claim genocide, which makes a fucking mockery of where there has been real genocide. Showing again, that negativity and dispair rules your reasoning

Now a very simple question

Do you believe people defined as black, matter more than whites when it comes to the basic fundemental right all humans have world wide. The right to life?

Hence why, blacks lives matters, is racist, not matter whatever context, because nobody riots, even though far more whites are shot and killed by the Police. The reality is that the US has a circular problem. Many Blacks are involved in more violent crime and Police killings and yet even so, more whites are shot by the Police. What is even ignored is the millions upon millions of arrests carried out, that never see a shot fired in anger.

What we then have, is where some black criminals have been shot. The onus is proclaimed straight away, that such a shooting has to be racist, without any evidence. Ignoring the very factors that leads to such shootings. The gun culture, high violent crime rates and Police videos, that have an emphasis on Police officers being gunned down

The black lives matters, ignores the one group, who more than anyone else is disproportionately shot by the Police more than anyone else.

Those with mental health issues. This proves, that such claims of racism, are unfounded. They will be rare cases, where it is racism, but generally leftist idiots suffering from white guilt. Are only able to essentially shout racism, at only ever shootings that involve the victim being black.

The fact you invoke the holocasut and then make a mockery of the word genocide, shows its idiots like you that like i say, ensure racial hatred continues, By trying to invoke the worst anger, though lies.

That essentially makes you the worst kind of idiot

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

There is every indication his motivation is racist, when the known killers have a blatant history of racism

Ask yourself, why would he try to deny that they are racist or that the murder was racially motivated, if not to defend the murderers?

He is simple echoing what other racists are doing

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6085615/stephen-lawrence-murder-bnp-activists-defend-killers-eltham/

I don't agree. He might think that there was another motive for the murder - that doesn't make him racist, and it doesn't mean he's accusing Stephen of anything. Perhaps Stephen knew his killers. I have wondered that myself.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't agree. He might think that there was another motive for the murder - that doesn't make him racist, and it doesn't mean he's accusing Stephen of anything. Perhaps Stephen knew his killers. I have wondered that myself.

I do think there was a motive... and it wasn't racism, or a random attack...!


I have always thought it a terrible thing that he was attacked and killed... just as I think the countless other cases of victims of street violence, are terrible things too...!


However the media/political circus around the SL case (from the start and still now) and the way the 'official story' has been pushed and repeated, constantly, again & again, over & over, time after time, all these years... AND NEVER WITH ANY REAL EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP... and never a care or consideration about jeopardising any court proceedings/right to a fair trial/'sub judice' etc... is all quite strange when you think about it... it has clearly all been very carefully orchestrated and over all these years... keeping on repeating a story of fiction as fact...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't agree. He might think that there was another motive for the murder - that doesn't make him racist, and it doesn't mean he's accusing Stephen of anything. Perhaps Stephen knew his killers. I have wondered that myself.

I do think there was a motive... and it wasn't racism, or a random attack...!


I have always thought it a terrible thing that he was attacked and killed... just as I think the countless other cases of victims of street violence, are terrible things too...!


However the media/political circus around the SL case (from the start and still now) and the way the 'official story' has been pushed and repeated, constantly, again & again, over & over, time after time, all these years... AND NEVER WITH ANY REAL EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP... and never a care or consideration about jeopardising any court proceedings/right to a fair trial/'sub judice' etc... is all quite strange when you think about it... it has clearly all been very carefully orchestrated and over all these years... keeping on repeating a story of fiction as fact...

What do you think the motive was Tommy?

I do agree that everyone just believed what the press said at the time, and most people have not changed their mind.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


I do think there was a motive... and it wasn't racism, or a random attack...!


I have always thought it a terrible thing that he was attacked and killed... just as I think the countless other cases of victims of street violence, are terrible things too...!


However the media/political circus around the SL case (from the start and still now) and the way the 'official story' has been pushed and repeated, constantly, again & again, over & over, time after time, all these years... AND NEVER WITH ANY REAL EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP... and never a care or consideration about jeopardising any court proceedings/right to a fair trial/'sub judice' etc... is all quite strange when you think about it... it has clearly all been very carefully orchestrated and over all these years... keeping on repeating a story of fiction as fact...

What do you think the motive was Tommy?

I do agree that everyone just believed what the press said at the time, and most people have not changed their mind.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:

Are they politically motivated?

How do you think the Police arrest and prosecute white nationalists and KKK, that commit crimes?

The fact is, that Black lives matter is essentially a racist organisation. Which certainly does have extremists within the organisation

As all lives matter and more whites are actually shot  by the Police. Hardly any asians are, because hardly any compared to whites and blacks, are involved in violent crimes.

You want to cure these problems of crime. Then you tackle relative poverty

Looks like didge has just said that some races are more likely violent criminals than another...!!!


Hasn't he disagreed and called me racist when I've said that before...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What do you think the motive was Tommy?

I do agree that everyone just believed what the press said at the time, and most people have not changed their mind.

I'm not sure what the motive was... or who did it... or the extent of Duwayne Brooks involvement...


But I do think that something more was going on...

Tommy Monk wrote:

There were witnesses... all of whom disagreed with DB story...


DB was the only one who claimed the attackers said "what, what ni66er?"... which is the only thing there ever was to claim that it was a 'racist attack'...


All the other witnesses said that 'what, what, ni66er?" was never said by any of the attackers...!


DB was the only witness who kept changing his story... and the only witness account that was ruled inadmissible by a judge, for being 'unreliable'...!


If the words 'what, what, ni66er?" were never said... where is the evidence that the attack was racist...?

Tommy Monk wrote:Other witnesses were there... all said that no racist words were said before/during/after the attack...


DB kept changing his story and was ruled by a judge to be unreliable...


So where is the evidence it was a random racist attack...?

Tommy Monk wrote:DB story unreliable...


Evidence DNA highly questionable...


No real other evidence...


It has been trial by media, keeping on repeating a story without any evidence to back it up...

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


I'm not sure what the motive was... or who did it... or the extent of Duwayne Brooks involvement...


But I do think that something more was going on...

People do not see the undertones of racism above?

wow

The Police did have a motive, based on the evidence of Duwayne, who happens to be black and Tommy clearly is discounting his evidence

On top of that and again based on no evidence, is insinuating he was more involved in this

You know, the only black witness

I mean we have video evidence of the gangs beingh racist and showing them using their knives

We have evidence that places the convicted killers at the scene of the crime and Tommy wants people to believe the Black witness was more involved in

If people cannot see the racist undertones on that, when he formely called Stephen a "wrongon" based again on no evidence. Then people are clearly blind to racism

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


People do not see the undertones of racism above?

wow

The Police did have a motive, based on the evidence of Duwayne, who happens to be black and Tommy clearly is discounting his evidence

On top of that and again based on no evidence, is insinuating he was more involved in this

You know, the only black witness

I mean we have video evidence of the gangs beingh racist and showing them using their knives

We have evidence that places the convicted killers at the scene of the crime and Tommy wants people to believe the Black witness was more involved in

If people cannot see the racist undertones on that, when he formely called Stephen a "wrongon" based again on no evidence. Then people are clearly blind to racism

We did see that video, but don't you think it's odd that they didn't talk about killing Stephen Lawrence? After all, they didn't know they were being filmed.

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

There were witnesses... all of whom disagreed with DB story...


DB was the only one who claimed the attackers said "what, what ni66er?"... which is the only thing there ever was to claim that it was a 'racist attack'...


All the other witnesses said that 'what, what, ni66er?" was never said by any of the attackers...!


DB was the only witness who kept changing his story... and the only witness account that was ruled inadmissible by a judge, for being 'unreliable'...!


If the words 'what, what, ni66er?" were never said... where is the evidence that the attack was racist...?

Really, what other witnesses, witnessed the actual attack?

How close where they to the attack?

Distance please?

So the video surviellance that sees them using knifes and racist language against blacks is not evidence to you? Then with morder technology, placing the convicted at the scene of the crime?

I see you distort the truth, as it was his identification evidence, that was dismissed as unreliable. Not the claim, on what they said

You see yet more evidence of racist undertones, fundementally lying to what the Judge did dismiss.

So even though one judge dismisses some evidence, does not mean Duwayne was lying or that he was more involved

Like I say, it takes a very racist mindset to distort a case and place blame on the other black victim in this crime

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

We did see that video, but don't you think it's odd that they didn't talk about killing Stephen Lawrence? After all, they didn't know they were being filmed.

Why would they talk about it?

You do realise that people can also overhear

They were certainly blatantly and openly racist, that was seen by the first trial how they acted, but they are not going to openly admit to a murder, in case someone is listening. That is just common sense

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really, what other witnesses, witnessed the actual attack?

How close where they to the attack?

Distance please?

So the video surviellance that sees them using knifes and racist language against blacks is not evidence to you? Then with morder technology, placing the convicted at the scene of the crime?

I see you distort the truth, as it was his identification evidence, that was dismissed as unreliable. Not the claim, on what they said

You see yet more evidence of racist undertones, fundementally lying to what the Judge did dismiss.

So even though one judge dismisses some evidence, does not mean Duwayne was lying or that he was more involved

Like I say, it takes a very racist mindset to distort a case and place blame on the other black victim in this crime

There were three witnesses at the bus stop. I don't know how far that was - you can look it up on google maps.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Why would they talk about it?

You do realise that people can also overhear

They were certainly blatantly and openly racist, that was seen by the first trial how they acted, but they are not going to openly admit to a murder, in case someone is listening. That is just common sense

Why wouldn't they talk about it? They had already been accused, so it would have been natural to talk about it. They weren't around other people, and they wouldn't have been talking the way they did if they thought they could be overheard. They would talk about it in a low voice if necessary.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There were three witnesses at the bus stop. I don't know how far that was - you can look it up on google maps.

So you have no idea whether they could have been near enough to hear what was said

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why wouldn't they talk about it? They had already been accused, so it would have been natural to talk about it. They weren't around other people, and they wouldn't have been talking the way they did if they thought they could be overheard. They would talk about it in a low voice if necessary.

Really, walls are very thin and people can hear

Hence they were not concerned people knew they were racist, that was a given, but clearly taking about a case, is a sure way to label themselves. Hence nobody would do so.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really, walls are very thin and people can hear

Hence they were not concerned people knew they were racist, that was a given, but clearly taking about a case, is a sure way to label themselves. Hence nobody would do so.

Well I think it's very odd that they didn't talk about them killing Stephen. You can disagree all you like.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you have no idea whether they could have been near enough to hear what was said

You asked where the witnesses were and I told you. Can't you look anything up for yourself? I would say they were about 40-50 metres from Dickson Road where the attack happened.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well I think it's very odd that they didn't talk about them killing Stephen. You can disagree all you like.

I dont think its odd at all

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You asked where the witnesses were and I told you. Can't you look anything up for yourself? I would say they were about 40-50 metres from Dickson Road where the attack happened.

Which is a long enough distance to not hear properly what has been said

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which is a long enough distance to not hear properly what has been said

You'll have to take that up with Tommy. Try reading the witness statements.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You'll have to take that up with Tommy. Try reading the witness statements.

I dont have to take it up with anyone, when I have just told you

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


I dont have to take it up with anyone, when I have just told you

It was Tommy you were berating though. You telling me anything doesn't mean you're right. In fact, it usually means the opposite.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was Tommy you were berating though. You telling me anything doesn't mean you're right. In fact, it usually means the opposite.

Here we go again, Rags, screaming for my attention

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Here we go again, Rags, screaming for my attention

You asked a question, I gave you the answer, and now you're having a tantrum. I thought you were flouncing anyway on the grounds that the admin won't bow to your demands.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You asked a question, I gave you the answer, and now you're having a tantrum. I thought you were flouncing anyway on the grounds that the admin won't bow to your demands.

Still crying out for my attention Rags

Tommy Monk wrote:What was said on the secret surveillance video that is evidence that they commited the murder...?

Tommy Monk wrote:Good evening Raggs... I hope you have been enjoying this Mayday bank holiday weekend...!


So no evidence on the secret surveillance video either, eh...!?


Where is all this evidence that is claimed...???


What evidence is there that has ever backed up the 'official story' (that we have been repeatedly been told as fact over the last 25 years)...???

Tommy Monk wrote:


Yes dodge... you have already posted that... and it doesn't answer my question...



The official story is that a group of 5-6 young white men came at SL in an attack, engulfing SL and grabbing him, bringing him down to the ground and SL stabbed twice during this attack...

(SL also had injuries of a small cut to the chin and abrasions to back of right hand and right cheek.)


Now... given that DNA/fibre evidence will be being left by perpetrators as well as victims at a crime scene... and that during an attack, such as on SL, would be expected to result in a large exchange of DNA/fibre evidence not just from victim to attackers... BUT ALSO FROM ATTACKERS TO VICTIMS CLOTHING!!!


So... where is the DNA/fibre evidence on SL clothes from attackers...!!!???


They grabbed him and bundled him to the ground...!


SL clothes would be covered in DNA/fibre evidence from attackers... wouldn't they...!?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Yes dodge... you have already posted that... and it doesn't answer my question...



The official story is that a group of 5-6 young white men came at SL in an attack, engulfing SL and grabbing him, bringing him down to the ground and SL stabbed twice during this attack...

(SL also had injuries of a small cut to the chin and abrasions to back of right hand and right cheek.)


Now... given that DNA/fibre evidence will be being left by perpetrators as well as victims at a crime scene... and that during an attack, such as on SL, would be expected to result in a large exchange of DNA/fibre evidence not just from victim to attackers... BUT ALSO FROM ATTACKERS TO VICTIMS CLOTHING!!!


So... where is the DNA/fibre evidence on SL clothes from attackers...!!!???


They grabbed him and bundled him to the ground...!


SL clothes would be covered in DNA/fibre evidence from attackers... wouldn't they...!?

I don't think Didge understands the question Tommy, but it's a good one. Nothing was found on Stephen's clothes?

Tommy Monk wrote:Nothing from any of the alleged perpetrators... but what WAS found on his clothes, that would be from the ACTUAL perpetrators...?


I have a theory...