G-20 Summit in Toronto

[Asterix]

the streets and the city belong to the people, and therefore the people have a right to access and make a stand in public... the streets that were robbed from them for a weekend... your neighbourhood, and your streets without anyone consulting you.

Whose streets? My streets!

What about me, whose pays taxes that go to the city to build and maintain roads intended to convey transportation of citizens exercising their right to freedom of movement? What about my rights to expect pedestrians from wandering around on the streets without a permit and blocking my streetcar? There are plenty of places for them to exercise their freedom of expression without infringing on my freedom of movement. They certainly never consulted me on that and they robbed me of the streets for the weekend.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Asterix:

Neither did the Feds when they decided the event should be held in Toronto.

AoD

 

[Asterix]

Neither did the Feds when they decided the event should be held in Toronto.

While I definitely agree that the Feds shouldn't have decided to hold it where they did, at least the Feds are nominally accountable to me and you through the ballot box.

Those who blocked the streets without permission (let alone destroyed public and private property) have no accountability.

 

[tkip]

Interesing....

the context may have been that he was obstructing the police from doing their job. no context is given in Paikin's account.

It all comes down to context.

I don't know exactly what Steve and others were doing that day when police decided to rush in and start beating them senseless. With so many witnesses and cameras and the media watching, I'm just scratching my head over why the police would then choose that moment to just rush people minding their business and start brualizing indecrriminately. It doesn't make sense.

And I'm still questioning the motives and intentions of protestors who seemed bent on taking over a street less than 24 hrs after all the violence and ugliness and thought it was a good idea to defy the police.

 

[Coltaine79]

With so many witnesses and cameras and the media watching, I'm just scratching my head over why the police would then chose that moment to just rush people minding their business and start brualizing indecrriminately. It doesn't make sense.

Something is missing from this story. Something else happened out there that's not being reported.

IMO, your "missing item" may simply be that the police line recieved orders over their radios from their equivalent of Central Command; orders to the effect of "quell the protesters immediately".
Is this not the most reasonably and likely explanation?

This is why so many people are calling for Blair's head... why would we call for the heads of the actual riot police who performed the rush? They wouldn't have decided to do that of their own accord. It was a co-ordinated action, meaning it had to have been an ORDER.

"bad orders" = police chief must take the heat

btw I assume you're talking about Q&S on Sunday.

 

[Asterix]

It all comes down to context.

I'm just scratching my head over why the police would then chose that moment to just rush people minding their business and start brualizing indecrriminately.

'Minding their business'? I thought they were deliberately blocking a public thoroughfare and taunting law enforcement officers. Not doing a very good job of minding anything.

As for why THAT particular moment, as another posted suggested, there was quite likely an order to clear the street. Exact timing probably left to the commander on the scene. The best time to launch any kind of offensive is when the opposition least expect it (and watching the video, it appears that just moments before, the crowd started approaching the police line with several individuals planting themselves on the ground in the middle of the street). Perhaps the police wouldn't have moved if the crowd didn't advance towards them.

And I'm still questioning the motives and intentions of protestors who seemed bent on taking over a street less than 24 hrs after all the violence and ugliness and thought it was a good idea to defy the police.

Defy the police? Presumably that means the weren't 'minding their business'.

 

[toraerach]

Whose streets? My streets!

What about me, whose pays taxes that go to the city to build and maintain roads intended to convey transportation of citizens exercising their right to freedom of movement? What about my rights to expect pedestrians from wandering around on the streets without a permit and blocking my streetcar? There are plenty of places for them to exercise their freedom of expression without infringing on my freedom of movement. They certainly never consulted me on that and they robbed me of the streets for the weekend.

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 (which dates to the industrial revolution and the need to transport mass amounts of good and people to and from train stations). Is it a bit idealistic of them to take to the streets for that reason? Sure, but they're doing no more harm than the Tamil protests last year, the yearly blackout anniversary march, or hundreds of other events that happen in this city each year. If the police had allowed these people to continue, they would have moved on and left the streets clear. They were not allowed to continue because crowds standing outside of an apparently impenetrable fence must be avoided at all costs.

While I definitely agree that the Feds shouldn't have decided to hold it where they did, at least the Feds are nominally accountable to me and you through the ballot box.

Those who blocked the streets without permission (let alone destroyed public and private property) have no accountability.

Don't confuse the people I was talking about with the Black Bloc. Those who destroyed public and private property will be accountable to the law, as should those police officers who violated the law. In the grand scheme of things, dancing in the middle of a street is possibly the most benign "crime" one could commit. Just from a logistics stand point, once a march or protest has reached a certain size, it is no longer possible for pedestrians to stick to the sidewalk, even if that's what the organizers intended (which probably isn't what happened here). The officers on duty could have given each protester here a ticket for walking in the street (a response proportionate to the offence), sure, but they had batons and riot shields, not ticket books and pens.

Something is missing from this story. Something else happened out there that's not being reported.

From what I understand, the officers at the scene themselves did not make the big decisions. A lack or breakdown of communication between the officers and the people they were getting their orders from seems to be the most likely reason to me. This is why we need an inquiry - to fill in the missing gaps.

 

[Coltaine79]

Weapons’ seized in G20 arrests not what they seem

~ snip ~

However, the arrows belong to Brian Barrett, a 25-year-old landscaper who was heading to a role-playing fantasy game when he was stopped at Union Station on Saturday morning. Police took his jousting gear but let Mr. Barrett go, saying it was a case of bad timing.

Those damn LARPers! They should just stay home and play WoW. How dare they act like they have the freedom to act out their nerdy fantasies in public places. What do they think this is, a liberal Western democracy with respect for freedom of assembly? Oh, Please! Only criminals play LARP games. And if you're not with us, you're with them. Dissention will not be tolerated!

 

[Asterix]

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 (which dates to the industrial revolution and the need to transport mass amounts of good and people to and from train stations). Is it a bit idealistic of them to take to the streets for that reason? Sure, but they're doing no more harm than the Tamil protests last year, the yearly blackout anniversary march, or hundreds of other events that happen in this city each year. If the police had allowed these people to continue, they would have moved on and left the streets clear. They were not allowed to continue because crowds standing outside of an apparently impenetrable fence must be avoided at all costs.

True enough about the use of public streets, but I did slightly exaggerate to make the point that it is not a completely black and white issue of benign protesters versus evil police bent on trampling everyone's rights.

Pretty well all major marches in the city do so after having received a permit from the city, as do any of the events that close down streets. If I have a big problem with Word on the Street or Taste of the Danforth, then I can take that to my elected councilor and mayor who would have the authority to refuse future permission. There just isn't that accountability from those who blockaded public streets without permission.

Just from a logistics stand point, once a march or protest has reached a certain size, it is no longer possible for pedestrians to stick to the sidewalk, even if that's what the organizers intended (which probably isn't what happened here).

Exactly. One of the big reasons why organizers should get permission and a permit so that appropriate measures can be taken in advance to provide adequate police escort and re-route surface transit and traffic.

The officers on duty could have given each protester here a ticket for walking in the street (a response proportionate to the offence), sure, but they had batons and riot shields, not ticket books and pens.

Ticket books and pens are not very useful when it comes to enforcing the law on people who are throwing bricks and burning police vehicles. Of course one can say that happened Saturday, not Sunday, but when you've got a crowd of people choosing to gather in the exact same location and there is plenty of reason to believe the instigators of Saturday's problems are present and desirous of repeating things, is there any other rational response? I'm sure all that mayhem could have been avoided if only the police had asked them nicely to stop.

 

[CityPainter]

Having read through pages and pages of arguments and counter-arguments here, I think that the need for a transparent and impartial inquiry is clearly shown. The truth is, none of us really KNOW what happened during these various confrontations. Certainly some people will claim police brutality, or claim that they were only innocent bystanders when they were not. But the sheer number of complaints and the anecdotal video and photo evidence that seems to back them up does raise some serious questions about police behaviour which have not been answered in any satisfactory way. The evasion of the police to pointed questions, and their own seeming confusion about their actions during and after the events are very worrying. In particular, the extremely large percentage of people who were released without charges after many hours of detainment is troublesome. I've seen no hard statistics, but from what I've read it seems that the vast majority were detained without just cause or any proof of wrongdoing that was strong enough to hold up in court. And if this is the case, why were they detained? Even when the police try to justify things, such as by displaying yesterday's lame outlay of weapons (including several they already admitted were not G20 related, and dozens of gas masks which are not weapons and were in fact handed out to journalists by various news organizations) has only served to weaken their own position.

I don't think most sane people are asking for all police to be demonized or blamed for everything; we are asking for an honest transparent investigation and for some straight answers. The police had a tough job to do, but they were well-equipped, well-trained, and well-compensated for their work, and they are not above the law themselves. And, as unfair as it may be, the police are held to a much higher level of accountability than criminals. Because some people were acting as hooligans does not mean that the rights of hundreds of other people in this city can suddenly be voided.

Additionally, anyone bringing the political views of the individuals arrested into the conversation is missing the point of the anger. I personally do not share the political opinions of the vast majority of the protesters I saw on the weekend-- I am not anti-capitalist, anti-G20, anti-Obama, anti-prison, pro-marijauana, etc. However, I understand that as Canadians we have a right to take these stances and make our opinions known. I feel no need to protest at the moment because everything in my life is pretty swell; but that might change in 10, 20, or 40 years, and one day if I have a reason to support a personal cause I want to know that my right to fight for it legally is still intact.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Thank you for the well-reasoned response CityPainter. I might add that the inquiry IMO shouldn't be a witch-hunt to get heads rolling (unless something seriously criminal is uncovered during the course of the investigation) but should be one of truthfinding and sober analysis.

AoD

PS: Wondeful paintings!

 

[CityPainter]

Thank you for the well-reasoned response CityPainter. I might add that the inquiry IMO shouldn't be a witch-hunt to get heads rolling (unless something seriously criminal is uncovered during the course of the investigation) but should be one of truthfinding and sober analysis.

AoD

PS: Wondeful paintings!

Thanks, Alvin!

 

[Darwinkgo]

The question is, what would a public inquiry show that the standard police review panel, and complaint process wouldn't? I can't imagine much.

If people don't like how breach of the peace offences are enforced and the powers police have to search and seize if they have probable cause, then the appropriate place is to act through the ballot box to elect someone that will change the law.

No sense wasting time and money on an inquiry to figure out mostly what we know:

Excessive force was likely used at different points, but were isolated incidents and not systemic

• Command and control over a wide ranging operation is difficult, and should be improved
• Alternative means of clearing crowds perhaps should be permitted at an earlier stage, to avoid the use of excessive charges, especially by the mounted unit (hello LRAD/Sound cannon)
• More effective means to address large crowds should be present within field units, and they should be used (don't assume protesters can hear warnings given by the front line)
• Better communication to both the media and public is needed, empower commanders on the ground to talk to the media
• Explanation of what the 'rights' of a roving unorganized protest compared to an organized route submitted march are ie: are they allowed to occupy an area indefinitely, is it different if one occupies a street in front of a business or Nathan Phillips Square

 

[buildup]

Steve Paikin,

"I have reported from war zones in Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Lebanon, and Israel.

But last night's confrontation between peaceful demonstrators and riot squad police was the scariest situation I've ever been in, in almost 30 years of reporting."

We have spent a lot of time questionning people's judgement in real time and under stress. This is an example how, even after a chance for sober reflection, a seasoned reporter can exhibit bad judgement. While Paikin is only referring to his very personal experiences, it is was irresponsible to draw ANY parallel between our G20, where there were no serious injuries, and the ethnic cleansing and near genocide in the former Yugoslavia.

 

[buildup]

He was drawing a parallel between his experiences. To what purpose though? If there was no parallel between the actual events outside his experience, why share the information? He is a Reporter, his job is to interpret.

For example - would it be helpful if I shared with someone my experience of being pushed in a Eaton's Centre shopping crowd was as upsetting as witnessing the shooting of a stranger? True, but what is the point?