I don't have a problem with protesting the police presence but this display was not aimed at the the democratic leaders that commissioned their presence, it is aimed at civil servants doing their job which is simply misguided, as I said. Again, there was plenty of opportunity for 'singing and dancing' in Queen's Park and other parts of the city if misguided 'protestors' hadn't decided to abuse their 'rights' and hijack the day through violence and lawlessness.
These weren't the violent protesters. I'm not sure what their intentions were, but they had every right to do what they did. How exactly were they to aim their protests at the democratic leaders that commissioned the police presence? You know, the ones behind all of those cops. I recognize a few of the faces here from the Streets Are For People crowd, not that I'm attributing this particular protest to that group. It does reveal, however, some of the reasons why people were there and what they hoped to accomplish through their actions - i.e. the streets and the city belong to the people, and therefore the people have a right to access and make a stand in public. They're protesting police with weapons in riot gear in our city, in our streets, interrupting our lives. Their very presence on the street is a rejection of the police presence in the city, a rejection of "designated protest zones" (which, in their eyes, are akin to "designated breathing zones"), it is a form of taking back the streets where they live, work, and play everyday - the streets that were robbed from them for a weekend. Their chant is a rejection of the riot gear, not only as a presence in the city, but as a dehumanizing filter between the citizens and the civil servants
who work for them. On an average day, does an innocent person feel threatened by a police officer in his/her normal uniform? Of course not - they're there to help you, and you might even strike up a friendly conversation with them. You can look at them, get to know them, and they form a part of the neighbourhood and the city. When the riot gear goes on, they stop being people you can talk to. You can no longer differentiate between Constable Tom Jenkins or Sergeant Jane Hill - all you see is riot cops as one entity, reminiscent of the Borg hive mind. They stop being there to protect you - they're now there to intimidate you, and in this case to protect a group of powerful people parachuted into your city, your neighbourhood, and your streets without anyone consulting you.
The plus side of all this is that people realize how important the public sphere is. Hence the celebratory atmosphere - the singing and dancing. It's a refusal to be intimidated.
That's my interpretation of what they were trying to do there, not that I know for sure or necessarily agree with all of it, just the principles behind it.
So the right to sing and dance in Toronto is so endangered? Obviously not. Quite frankly this is an insult to those who died for our freedoms, as well as an insult to those who are hired to protect them.
It was endangered last week when police were disrupting civilian activity everywhere. The insult to those who died for our freedom is when we surrender it so easily. The insult is when those who are hired to protect those rights violate them (whether intentionally or due to a lack of resources). Given the reports from independent observers and journalists
who were actually there, I sincerely doubt that rights were the first thing on many police officers' minds. If there are officers who were hired to protect our rights, paid for by the taxpayers of this country and city, then they should be fired if they are found to have disregarded the rights and laws they are charged to uphold. The actions of police officers deserve scrutiny precisely for the fact that they're supposed to uphold them. Even the mere suggestion that they might have done something should be of concern to all citizens, and those allegations should be proven or disproven.
I see no substantial difference between this group and the protest organized by the Anglican Church on Sunday. In both cases, the protest engaged in some form of non-violent civil disobedience (neither occurred in the official protest zone), and both were celebratory in nature. The Anglican-organized event marched towards the security fence and, when stopped by the police, sat down and prayed for whatever issues they cared about. These protesters were also confronted by the police and peacefully reacted through song and dance about the issues they care about. Were the Anglicans provoking a police response? No. Were these people? No.
