The difference between inflammatory and defamatory.

The Toronto Police union is calling for Sid Ryan to resign after the labour leader suggested police may plant agent provocateurs among the G20 protesters to incite violence. “It’s a totally irresponsible, inflammatory and idiotic thing to say for someone in his position. Nothing could be further from the truth,” said Mike McCormack, president of the Toronto Police Association. “It’s a total insult to police everywhere.”

At a Wednesday news conference for the “People First!” rally, Ryan said he had concerns the police would use disguised agents to cause chaos in order to provoke a violent response from security forces. “They’ve done it before,” said Ryan, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. “I’m concerned about that as a tactic to justify police presence and justify the spending of $1.3 billion on security.”

From here. Notice McCormack said inflammatory and not defamatory. An explanation for this would be, as the letter from the Council of Canadians to Harper illustrates, there is cause for such concerns.

“Three undercover police officers attempted to incite violence in 2007 at the Montebello protest against the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The proof of their actions was caught on film,” adds Barlow. “The Sûreté du Québec was forced to admit that they were police officers, dressed in black and holding rocks. Yet, to date no one has been held accountable and through his silence, Harper appears to have given tacit approval of the use of agents provocateurs.”

It was the above incident that came to mind when this occurred in Ottawa, shortly before Stevie and his bullies disclosed the billion dollars (and rising) budget anticipated for the G-8/B-20 held in Ontario, much of it dedicated to public government security.