G-20 Summit in Toronto

[tkip]

People don't understand or they don't want to understand.

It's a typical knee jerk reaction to claim that I thought someone had it coming when I'm talking about using common sense and understanding the choices you make and that includes participating , either as a bystander or as part of the protestors in a protest or being in the immediate vicinity of a summit that everyone knew was rife with possible danger. People were being warned to stay away from the downtown core all the weekend through the media.

It wasn't a secret. I heard TTC supervisors out on the streets telling people not to go downtown. So it wasn't just from the "police" as someone claimed which is pure bullshit.

Yeah, we deserve protection.

But one's choices with how they get into situations needs to be addressed and no one wants to do this. I'm not saying or have ever said that people had it coming. Only that they should have known that something might have happened. It's like a pedestrian screaming at a driver for nearly hitting them when they just suddenly step off the sidewalk onto the street and into the path of traffic. Which I see all the time now.

Sure, if the pedestrian had been injured, they need medical attention but you have to question them as to why they just thought it was okay to step off the sidewalk and expect traffic to suddenly stop for them. People don't think (common sense) and it's creating stupid scenerios with results that many times are avoidable.

So let me repeat. I don't think people should be deprived of help or assitance or protection but when it's obvious that they put themselves into dangerous and risky scenerios that had possible negative outcomes, don't complain about not understanding what happend and how you got caught up in it.

And I don't want someone to interpret this as me letting the police off the hook. Right now we're still dealing with allegations and until there's an investigation, I'm not just going to accept at face value the stories I'm hearing.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Firstly, there are plenty of people such as at Queen and Spadina who were just doing their daily business. Should they be disrupted by an activity that they didn't even want in the first place which wasn't even supposed to affect them, and then purposely avoid that place because something might have been happened?

Secondly, telling people they had it coming because they were protesting for their issues is stupid. If protesters get grouped together with the bad apples and the police decide to crack down indiscriminately, that's in no way the protester's fault. They're just exercising their right. It may not be a constitutional case with what happened, but the police should actually be doing all they can to help the protesters protest effectively.

 

[tkip]

When did I say that people had it coming for being in a protest? You're putting words in my mouth and purposedly taking things out of context.

I said "Only that they should have known that something might have happened".

The message is that if you understand the risks of engaging in a activity where force might be applied, and everyone on the planet thought this was a disitinct possibilty especially after the the mayhem on saturday, then you have to expect that it might happen. And it did. I really don't think people have a clue as how difficult it is to get a crowd of people under control when they don't want to cooperate.

Or the bystanders who shouldn't have been standing there gawking so close to the situation. If I was one of those bystanders and the police were ordering people to desist and clear out, I would have moved my ass. And I'm not defending having the summit dropped into our city with our policticians and police force being charged with creating the security zone and cleaning up the mess. It was a federal decision.

Take this up with Harper. Strangely only on this board does this not make sense to people. At work, everyone gets it. And my co-workers' views are much harsher than mine own.

 

[Peepers]

Strangely only on this board does this not make sense to people. At work, everyone gets it. And my co-workers' views are much harsher than mine own.

If your co-workers views are "much harsher" than yours why should you be surprised that your views make perfect sense to them if not to the rest of us?

 

[syn]

His T-shirt says "Courage to Resist" and has a peace sign on it (couldn't make out the rest)... Is he taking a break from protesting?

I've watched this video around 10 times and laughed everytime. It's hilarious - the rant, the kid in blue acting like an idiot at the window, the little smartass convo at the end...it deserves it's own thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHIZ2Jl2vuQ

 

[Asterix]

under conditions worse than Guantanamo Bay!

Wow, this is the first I've heard of the Toronto detainees being dressed in bright orange jump suits, being blindfolded as they were transported around the detention centre, subjected to 24+ hours of continuous interrogations, kept in open-air cages and the like.

Why hasn't the media reported any of these grievous conditions? Or are you just being dramatic?

 

[Darwinkgo]

Here is an even clearer picture of this guy. Note the expensive gear he is wearing? He certainly looks more like a cop than an anarchist! Why haven't the cops plastered this all over the place?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mollymotmot/4741238382/in/photostream/

I find it interesting that the You tube video from which these frames were taken was posted on Sunday and yet as of this evening the police have not released a copy of this on their website requesting assistance from the public in identifying this man! If this guy is not one of their own you would think the cops would be anxious to I.D. this guy but apparently they are not. It will be interesting to see if a copy of this ever makes its way to their website.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-5jeaIh4YE

How do we know this person isn't currently detained? We don't. We also don't know if the police are in the middle of an investigation and have fairly good leads. They would only ask for tips if the trail is cold.

 

[Tewder]

A crazed consumer looses his marbles when he can't shop at the Eaton Centre during it's lock-down on Saturday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXIE2uOdnkQ

These people ascribe a different meaning to the street: it is first and foremost a public space where community happens. Indeed, the idea of the urban street as a communal space is rooted much deeper in history than the space devoted exclusively to transportation meaning that you ascribe to it ...

Well I for one can sleep safely at night knowing we've affirmed our 'rights' to shop, sing and dance whenever and wherever we please... laws be damned it's every shopper, singer and dancer for his/herself!!

I
Whether you agree with what the protesters have to say, everyone has the right to assemble and have their voice heard - if it disrupts your shopping at the Eaton Centre or your streetcar route, too stinking bad. The right to protest is bigger and more urgent than any individual human need because protest is at the root of lasting social change.

Good grief, a little 'context' here please. I don't think one single individual here has suggested that there was no right to assemble and protest. This had been accommodated for on Saturday. The events on Sunday were about containing a repeat of a Saturday that had gone wrong. No more, no less.

The notion that the security measures in place for the summit were a fundamental breach of rights is simply petulant, and it is as deluded a viewpoint as that of the Eaton's shopper! As individuals we do not 'own' the street or public spaces. We only own them collectively as a society, at least in an ordered and lawful one. Our society was hosting what is arguably one of the largest and single most important international diplomatic events, and it was 'our' obligation to ensure its safety and the safety of its participants who are the elected representatives of other nations. This is a pretty tall order and an extremely important one, and it was in no way a breach of rights that 'we' as responsible citizens might have to be a little cooperative in the understanding of this, and keep out the freakin' way! Never mind the fact that space for peaceful protest, as part of our fundamental rights, was included in this plan. What enfolded was simply crime and civil disobedience at worst, anti-establishment opportunism at best. This doesn't excuse deliberate police brutality but if innocent people were hurt or detained in the line of duty it is simply an unfortunate casualty of the circumstances.

'Command control' could have done a better job of the whole weekend, in hindsight at least, but I have to side with the argument that says that in light of the circumstances, and in the bigger context of the event that was happening, the fact that there was no 'major' injury or destruction, and no loss of life, means that the overall response was successful. Sorry if you were inconvenienced. Sorry if you were hurt being where you shouldn't have been. Sorry if your sensibilities are offended. Get over it! A detailed inquiry should and must still be carried out, however, obviously.

 

[buildup]

"Unless you're the direct descendant of a European aristocrat, all the rights and freedoms and all the material trappings that underpin your daily life are the result of somebody who, at some time, decided to take to the streets. At the risk of sounding overly dramatic, a society without protest is a society that does not progress."

Most "material trappings" are attributable to the profit motive (the willingness of your employer to pay your salary to earn himself a profit), the rule of law which creates a stable environment where he/she can run a business, and property rights to protect what you own.

Excessive protesting disrupts all these things - so its all about balance.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Note to myself:

Avoid any city that will be hosting the G20 Summit in the future. If Toronto gets to host the G20 Summit again, plan a vacation around that time and leave town.

 

[typezed]

Those who say people should have stayed away from downtown or shutup must be the same people who think Jarvis and Spadina and Yonge should be expressways to rush the real workers efficiently home to their safe clean neighbourhoods. I good chunk of the downtown already was fenced off from ordinary citizens while world leaders played dress up and the media treated themselves to the open bar. Should businesses have been closed all the way up to Bloor? Should the downtown have been even more of a ghost town? On Sunday I saw people eating on the patio of the Rivoli, not far from where cars were on fire Saturday and not far from where later that day people were detained in the downpour for hours. Were these people asking for trouble for eating in the sunshine? I went downtown Friday and Sunday to see if my ordinary travels would be in any way compromised by having a billion dollars worth of police in the street. Mine weren't, but then I'm older and harmlessly conservative looking. I saw plenty of young people being stopped, questioned and searched on Sunday on streets far away from any fences or international politicians. I saw two unmarked vans moving up Yonge St., the cops travelling in them detaining someone on the sidewalk each time I passed. There was no reason for this. On Sunday there was a small group of older religious people protesting, some cyclists riding around making noise, and some people keeping watch on the action at the detention centre. There was no violence. The only thing downtown on Sunday to scare any ordinary citizen away were all the cops who were sore from their embarrassing inaction the day before.

 

[Tewder]

Those who say people should have stayed away from downtown or shutup must be the same people who think Jarvis and Spadina and Yonge should be expressways to rush the real workers efficiently home to their safe clean neighbourhoods. I good chunk of the downtown already was fenced off from ordinary citizens while world leaders played dress up and the media treated themselves to the open bar.

Thanks for yet another example of a complete lack of perspective or context. Next?

To spell it out again for those incapable of basic reading comprehension no one needed to have stayed away from anywhere going into the G20 weekend except for those areas that were set aside for security reasons. Intolerable to you? A breach of your right to be absolutely anywhere at any time? Poor baby! And Sunday would have been the same were it not for those who chose to deliberately ignore this because they felt it was their inalienable 'right' to do so. The city would have gone on about its merry business for two days with nothing but the memory of some inconvenience on the one hand, and perhaps the message of legitimate protest and demonstration on the other, a message that was lost unfortunately by the indulged among us who demonstrated nothing but a warped understanding of 'right's and clearly no understanding of responsibilities... Then again, yes, if you are unable to handle adult responsibility - as most of the prepubescent morons among them couldn't - you probably should have taken a 'time out' and left town.

The peaceful roving demonstration from Queen's Park was something to be proud of. Everything that ensued was an utter embarrassment.

 

[Peepers]

How do we know this person isn't currently detained? We don't. We also don't know if the police are in the middle of an investigation and have fairly good leads. They would only ask for tips if the trail is cold.

I am absolutely certain that if the cops had arrested this guy for torching a police cruiser they would have announced his arrest with great fanfare and they would have released his picture to the public "in case he is involved in other crimes".

They issued a press release for the arrest of this guy: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tor...n-arrested-for-impersonating-officer-in-video a British filmmaker who was charged with "impersonating a police offer" in an incident that anyone could plainly see was a prank - an unfunny prank but a prank nonetheless.

If he is still at loose it makes absolutely no sense not to release his picture no matter how solid their leads are.

 

[Peepers]

Here is another video - the best that I have seen yet - providing proof positive that Police used undercover cops dressed in "black block" garb:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYnzVxXF6lI

Near the end of the video you will see a man in a black hoodie and black pants marching backwards. He is flanked by other cops who are also marching backwards. There can be no doubt that this black block "demonstrator" is in fact a cop.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Here is another video - the best that I have seen yet - providing proof positive that Police used undercover cops dressed in "black block" garb:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYnzVxXF6lI

Near the end of the video you will see a man in a black hoodie and black pants marching backwards. He is flanked by other cops who are also marching backwards. There can be no doubt that this black block "demonstrator" is in fact a cop.

Could you give a time stamp... I simply cannot see what you are seeing in this video. How do you know this was a cop. How do you know he was acting as an agent provocoteur. How can you discern anything about this person based on, what, 5 seconds of web video.

A lot of people, cops, protesters, black bloc were moving into the background of the shot both forwards and backwards.