Yes, actually. I approve of taxes to defend freedom by ensuring peace and order.

So you are opposed to extra spending (stimulus!) and would prefer that we let a mob of thugs dictate where our government can hold an international conference. Huh. Actually that's not at all surprising.

Yes, that is funny, particularly since no one is dead. A lot of people will be, though, if our government decides as a matter of policy to let the threat of confrontation with rioters decide matters of governance.

Fighting for law and order is always more expensive (financially, in the short term) than letting the mob have its way. That doesn't make it any less worthwhile.

Ah yes, defending freedom by suspending it and granting the police unprecedented powers.

Ignoring the fact that you assume that the protester's demands are to move the venue, how exactly do you justify making the venue more expensive by holding it downtown Toronto? How is it more advantageous to hold it there instead of, say, Bender Hamlet Manitoba?

Middle of nowhere sounds better to most in Toronto right now. Maybe a military base or a cruise ship in international waters. Or Kananaskis.

ChrisKW……..How realistic is it to host two summits with maybe 20,000 people on a military base or in the bush. You anti summit people need to give your heads a shake big time.

We can remain a non entity in the world with little influence and stand by and watch the world go by or we can participate fully in the league of nations. However, if we participate we must pay the piper by hosting these events. Nobody has any idea whether the costs were worth it or not. However, you have to expect that the security experts told the government what needed to be done and it happened.

Even with the best plans there was vandalism which shocked most right thinking Canadians. Why people have to stand and stare at the police and they likewise is beyond me. There was no real protest other than people marching and some creating mayhem.

The PM is working on behalf of the country. The summit was a success. However, every country is sovereign and therefore it remains to be seen whether they honour their committments. If they don't that's not Harper's fault.

You'd be amazed at what Canada's temporary structures industry is capable of these days.

Rejecting the 'anti-summit' label, only in light of more thought-out venues do I admit to being anti-urban-invasion. Bilateral relations, especially with an inclusive list of attendees, are important. However, it's beyond the pale to invade an urban city core and allow fear to be instilled in average citizens. Who can blame them for refusing to flee from their homes and small businesses? Why must they be forced to pay for Harper's last-minute logistic leap?

Over the past 48 hours, a fraction of your 'maybe 20,000 people' met in Toronto. During the past couple weeks, the real work was done by unsung heroes in other venues, even other cities. For the base number of heads of state and the rest of the ruling class, a purpose-built facility hosting future events out of the way of our residential communities would lessen the tread on the commoners. We could call it a G20 Secretariat.

Aaand.. you do?

Yes, the analogy is imperfect.

In reality, the Canadian government is more than just an ordinary guy, and the G20 summit is more than just parking a car. It's one thing to let crime determine your choice of parking spots, but it's quite a different thing to let crime dictate the venue for an international summit hosted by the Canadian government.

Part of the government's job is to ensure that national decisions aren't dictated by mob rule. They would be forfeiting their role if they let it happen here. Harper chose rightly. Leftist partisans, however, would prefer to see the government back down to these thugs.

What is interesting and refreshing, however, is to see these leftist partisans decrying government spending for once, even though the spending happens to be on the one thing that government actually must spend money on: peace and security.

Ah, so then I expect I'll hear you criticizing Harper very soon for not holding the G8 in the same place as the G20, right? Obviously he was too intimidated to do so, right?

Bull.

What, exactly, would have been lost by not holding the G20 in Toronto?

Hollinm, please stop being so patronizing. I.E "Emily take a pill", "Thwim take a deep breath"

"national decisions aren't dictated by mob rule"

How about just common sense. There are hundreds of locations in Canada that are more visually stunning, offer nothing to be vandalised, and could be made to be more lavish for a fraction of the cost of these summits.

You're sounding as though you're saying that Toronto was a good idea because it was the best way to face the mob. If there is no other purpose for the summits than for the leaders to meet, then holding the event in a location that's easier to spruce up, easier to defend, and has no effect on our biggest financial district is not surrendering to the will of the mob.

A billion spent on building and improving a part of Canada sounds a lot better than billion spent on shutting down another part of Canada. That's the leftist complaint.

Get a grip, we just had the Olympics with little trouble. But in Vancouver we didn't have a large urban area walled off that needed to be secured at the expense of the surrounding areas. An area that was accessible by numbers of streets, Order was sacrificed to keep the red zone protected. Obviously the security plan wasn't well thought out.

It has nothing to do with intimidation. It has to do with wise use of resources. What.. exactly.. would have been lost had we *not* held the meetings in Toronto?

Well, for a start, the city asked that the meeting be held down the road at Exhibition Park. This (huge) self-contained facility would have been much easier and cheaper to protect, it would have reduced the impact on Toronto's downtown and would have focused the protesters away from a dense business district.

This was a practical solution that would have mitigated some of the negative impact while still allowing Toronto to host the meeting and some people here to strut around, unintimidated by the protesters.

The government organizers said no to the city's request.

What, with a billion to play with the brain trust in charge couldn't have worked something out? I bet there's some less accessible sites near hotels somewhere in GTA. It's not like any of those leaders or delegates were going to see any of Toronto or an actual Torontonian (except maybe hotel staff.) Why choose the absolutely most disruptive spot to hold the meetings?

I realize that that is his own subjective comment. I just do not find it credible.

Paikin is being sillier than Coyne talking about the imminent death of the Liberal Party.

it isn't hyperbole TY, he is saying that while there is no comparison between protests and war, that the level of threat he experienced in the confines from which he has reported in those war zones 'felt' more safe than where he found himself in the protests. that is not hyperbole, it is his experience.

For all the images of violence on TV over the last two days, not a single person seems to have suffered any sort of serious injury. Paiken's comparison to a war zone is excessive. Sure he may have been worried, but, come on, how can he really compare it to a real war situation? He was exaggerating.

I strongly oppose sexual harassment of women or men. However, having said that. I do not believe for a second that the woman who announced that the police had threatened to gang rape her was telling the truth. It doesn't pass the smell test.

Perhaps the difference was that he was actually in the thick of it happening, and happened this time to not be on the side of those who were far better armed.