Liberty or peace?
July 9th 2010 04:19
Is it acceptable for the police to misrepresent their authority if doing so is intended to protect life and property? Must an individual's civil liberties be subordinate to the task of keeping the peace for the 'greater good'?
These are just a few of the questions that have arisen in the aftermath of the G20 summit in Toronto.
On Saturday, June 26th, while a large non-violent protest against the G20 took place in Toronto, a splinter group employing "black bloc" tactics trashed a few streets in the downtown core. The rioters' targets were the supposed perpetrators of capitalist oppression: they vandalised bank machines, smashed store windows, and looted shops. Thanks to conventional news sources as well as social media and amateur photographers, there's no shortage of information about the chaos that ensued.
Many people wondered why--with the G20's Integrated Security Unit comprising personnel from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Toronto Police Service, the Peel Regional Police, the Ontario Provincial Police, and the Canadian Forces--the rioters could wreak havoc on streets where there was no police presence, while on some quiet streets just blocks away clusters of police officers had nothing to do. Furthermore, officers were filmed and photographed watching in the background while vandals damaged police cruisers and media vans.
Most of us noted that the police were showing remarkable restraint. Perhaps it was their way of showing the cynics that police officers weren't just brutes looking for some skulls to crack.
On the second day of the G20, the police seemed to do an about-face. They reacted with a show of unity and force. At Queen and Spadina--a busy spot where Chinatown and the entertainment district intersect--another large demonstration was underway, with protesters singing "O Canada". Police officers in riot gear surrounded the protesters. They let them finish the national anthem before sweeping in and detaining everyone in the area--protesters, journalists, and bystanders. People were handcuffed and detained in the rain for hours.
Elsewhere, plainclothes officers shoved people into unmarked vans for transportation to a temporary detention centre. People who were out shopping or strolling were herded as well. Like the bystanders at Queen and Spadina, they were guilty of nothing except for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
When questioned about the police's dramatic change in tactics, police chief Bill Blair said:
For months leading up to the G8/G20 summits, many critics of the security budget (more than $1 billion) bandied about the term "police state". I possess a healthy and moderate mistrust of the police, but I for one want to be cautious about using that term. I've been in a police state and my parents were born in one; while the police actions on the second day of the G20 were alarming, they don't compare to what may happen in an actual police state.
But even if it's no police state, one can't downplay the seriousness of the police actions during the summit--and what's transpired since.
At a press release, Blair stated that officers were not told to use tear gas; but on both days police officers used tear gas to quell protesters. Then there was the haul of weapons that the police purported were confiscated in relation to the G20. Wrong again. A few of the items on display were 'harmless' weapons taken from an RPG player. Before the summit, the police announced that they were granted extended arrest powers (by a regulation under Ontario's Public Works Protection Act) for June 21st to 28th, including the right to search and arrest anyone within five metres of the security perimeter (I made reference to this in a previous post). It turned out that Blair was mistaken, and the regulation pertained only to inside the fence; but upon realising his mistake, he did not amend his statement. When questioned about misleading the public, Blair smiled and said that he was "trying to keep the criminals out".
The police face mounting pressure to allow an independent inquiry into their actions. Whether they can bear more public scrutiny is beside the point, for an inquiry can take years to complete, costing taxpayers even more money. By the time the results come in, these two days in June 2010 will be, unfortunately, a distant memory. Despite the criticism from civilians, politicians, civil liberties groups, and other groups, the Toronto Council voted on July 7th to extend thanks to Blair and the Toronto Police Service for their work during the G20. However, councillor Brian Ashton had some strong words on the occasion:
Estimated Numbers from the Toronto G20
$1 billion security budget
20,000 police, army, and security personnel
8,000 to 10,000 protesters
1,000 individuals arrested--Canada's largest mass arrests ever made
17 individuals charged with the "most serious" crimes related to the riots, e.g., leaders of anarchist groups
*all quotes are from articles/interviews from The Globe & Mail
These are just a few of the questions that have arisen in the aftermath of the G20 summit in Toronto.
photo by Darren Calabrese/Canadian Press
On Saturday, June 26th, while a large non-violent protest against the G20 took place in Toronto, a splinter group employing "black bloc" tactics trashed a few streets in the downtown core. The rioters' targets were the supposed perpetrators of capitalist oppression: they vandalised bank machines, smashed store windows, and looted shops. Thanks to conventional news sources as well as social media and amateur photographers, there's no shortage of information about the chaos that ensued.
Many people wondered why--with the G20's Integrated Security Unit comprising personnel from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Toronto Police Service, the Peel Regional Police, the Ontario Provincial Police, and the Canadian Forces--the rioters could wreak havoc on streets where there was no police presence, while on some quiet streets just blocks away clusters of police officers had nothing to do. Furthermore, officers were filmed and photographed watching in the background while vandals damaged police cruisers and media vans.
Most of us noted that the police were showing remarkable restraint. Perhaps it was their way of showing the cynics that police officers weren't just brutes looking for some skulls to crack.
On the second day of the G20, the police seemed to do an about-face. They reacted with a show of unity and force. At Queen and Spadina--a busy spot where Chinatown and the entertainment district intersect--another large demonstration was underway, with protesters singing "O Canada". Police officers in riot gear surrounded the protesters. They let them finish the national anthem before sweeping in and detaining everyone in the area--protesters, journalists, and bystanders. People were handcuffed and detained in the rain for hours.
Elsewhere, plainclothes officers shoved people into unmarked vans for transportation to a temporary detention centre. People who were out shopping or strolling were herded as well. Like the bystanders at Queen and Spadina, they were guilty of nothing except for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
When questioned about the police's dramatic change in tactics, police chief Bill Blair said:
We had always intended to facilitate lawful, peaceful protest. When a large group--hundreds--engaged in criminality, our response had to change in response to their criminal behaviour.
Chief Bill Blair, Toronto Police Service
For months leading up to the G8/G20 summits, many critics of the security budget (more than $1 billion) bandied about the term "police state". I possess a healthy and moderate mistrust of the police, but I for one want to be cautious about using that term. I've been in a police state and my parents were born in one; while the police actions on the second day of the G20 were alarming, they don't compare to what may happen in an actual police state.
But even if it's no police state, one can't downplay the seriousness of the police actions during the summit--and what's transpired since.
At a press release, Blair stated that officers were not told to use tear gas; but on both days police officers used tear gas to quell protesters. Then there was the haul of weapons that the police purported were confiscated in relation to the G20. Wrong again. A few of the items on display were 'harmless' weapons taken from an RPG player. Before the summit, the police announced that they were granted extended arrest powers (by a regulation under Ontario's Public Works Protection Act) for June 21st to 28th, including the right to search and arrest anyone within five metres of the security perimeter (I made reference to this in a previous post). It turned out that Blair was mistaken, and the regulation pertained only to inside the fence; but upon realising his mistake, he did not amend his statement. When questioned about misleading the public, Blair smiled and said that he was "trying to keep the criminals out".
The police face mounting pressure to allow an independent inquiry into their actions. Whether they can bear more public scrutiny is beside the point, for an inquiry can take years to complete, costing taxpayers even more money. By the time the results come in, these two days in June 2010 will be, unfortunately, a distant memory. Despite the criticism from civilians, politicians, civil liberties groups, and other groups, the Toronto Council voted on July 7th to extend thanks to Blair and the Toronto Police Service for their work during the G20. However, councillor Brian Ashton had some strong words on the occasion:
We need to use all of our will, all of our energy, all of our thoughtfulness and all of the heritage and legacy that has been left to us to ensure that [a bystander] wouldn't get arrested if [riots] happened in the future -- that we wouldn't find ourselves having to abuse her civil liberties.
Saturday, 4 pm. Police cruiser on fire in the distance.
Estimated Numbers from the Toronto G20
$1 billion security budget
20,000 police, army, and security personnel
8,000 to 10,000 protesters
1,000 individuals arrested--Canada's largest mass arrests ever made
17 individuals charged with the "most serious" crimes related to the riots, e.g., leaders of anarchist groups
*all quotes are from articles/interviews from The Globe & Mail
| 181 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
