Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

One week later

by Aaron Wherry on Sunday, July 4, 2010 12:44pm - 79 Comments

Thoughts from Tabatha Southey, Lisa Rochon, Elaine McCoy, Aaron Leaf and Roland Paris. Torontoist has the 14 essential video clips of G20 weekend and an interview with the hero of the one below. The Star tells the stories of the TTC employee who was tackled and the protesters who got engaged. Dalton McGuinty speaks and punts. The CCLA is considering a lawsuit. And Mark Holland wants federal compensation for business that were trashed.

Tags: Black Bloc, Dalton McGuinty, Elaine McCoy, G20, G20 policing, Lisa Rochon, Mark Holland, protest, Tabatha Southey, Toronto, ttc

More by Aaron Wherry

Mike T.

If Blair gets to keep his job we are even farther down an ugly road than many have begun to suspect.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

I fully expect that Harper shall refuse to offer significant compensation to trashed businesses.

The resulting optics—of Harper spending a billion in order to wine and dine foreign elites and international bankers whilst sticking Canadian business-owners with a massive "security" bill for a failed urban security strategy and then letting them pay for his failure out of their own pockets—should demonstrate the deeply anti-local and anti-small-business bias that animates the globalist libertarian right in general and the CPC in particular.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

Why should anybody outside of Toronto have to pay for the results of the rioting? You already got $1B for security, why should the rest of the country have to pay for the mistakes of your Premier and police chief? Not to mention this was a simple case of Torontonians damaging Toronto, if you think the bill should be picked up by the government, let it be your own local governments.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

The key mistake was situating the summit in Toronto in the first place, and that was Harper's call.

As for the fanciful notion of "Torontonians damaging Toronto", you really need to read reports of the riots, which clearly point out that a significant proportion of the demonstrators were outsiders (with a large contingent from Quebec). They were not all locals.

Frankly, I've no idea why participating nations aren't required to pitch in for summit costs. I'm not fond of the idea of having to fork over my tax dollars to provide visiting Saudi royals and thugs from the Indonesian regime with their chilled cocktails and bodyguards.

http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

(with a large contingent from Quebec)

I'm all in favour of sending the majority of the bill to Quebec, if that's what you mean?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

Ever heard of "have-not province"? The feds pay for everything Quebec "pays" for, pal. But thanks for the suggestion.

No, I'd prefer to send the bill to our erstwhile "guests", the elite Saudi, Russian, and Indonesian thugs, who have no place on Canadian soil anyway.

Next, I want to see a commitment from the feds to host our next G8/G20 on Baffin Island, where participants can get a real taste of the True North, rather than some tacky, preposterous fake-lake garbage.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Next, I want to see a commitment from the feds to host our next G8/G20 on Baffin Island where participants can get a real taste of the True North

Logistically impossible. Or perhaps you envision an airstrip and a vast trailer camp with a thousand trailers?

rather than some tacky, preposterous fake-lake garbage.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/25/fake-lake-wake…
http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

…perhaps you envision an airstrip and a vast trailer camp with a thousand trailers?

Goodness! What does it take to have one's facetiousness registered as such around here? ;)

At any rate, trailers would be must too costly and would violate my fiscal conservative principles. I think a thousand igloos would do, each outfitted with a chemical toilet, of course.

And thanks for the Coyne link. Now that I know that $57,000 was blown on something Andrew doesn't really mind, I can rest easy. Hey, if it cost a mere $57,000 to build a glorified diorama for a Grade Eleven Geography project in order to give foreign journalists a Disneyfied simulacrum to gaze at while sipping their martinis, who am I to cavil?
Crit_Reasoning

Goodness! What does it take to have one's facetiousness registered as such around here? ;)

My apologies, dear Sir Francis, for not registering your facetiousness. It's just that I've seen similar arguments made many times by people who aren't being facetious. ;-)

a glorified diorama for a Grade Eleven Geography project in order to give foreign journalists a Disneyfied simulacrum to gaze at while sipping their martinis

From what I've seen, I'm not sure that the simulacrum was actually "Disneyfied". Perhaps if it had been introduced by a "Disney Mountie", from the bad old days in the mid-1990s when the RCMP actually licensed their international image to Disney?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

I'm not sure that the simulacrum was actually "Disneyfied". Perhaps if it had been introduced by a "Disney Mountie", from the bad old days…

…or if the wading pool had been turned into an 1812-themed "Pirates of the Great Lakes" extravaganza, with animatronic rogue Royal Marines boarding, plundering, and scuttling scale-model Yankee schooners. Now, that would be worth 57 grand. Just a thought for next time…
http://www2.macleans.ca/ Janice Rose

Overall, it's a pretty sad demonstration of policing. These are only video-taped example of police tactics. It makes one wonder how they perform every day in our country. How many rights are violated generally? Where are the standards of performance and ethical behaviours toward citizens of this country; some of whom may be a bit more persistent in expressing themselves than others?
madeyoulook

Logistically impossible. Or perhaps you envision an airstrip and a vast trailer camp with a thousand trailers?

Works for me.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&amp…
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Iqaluit was barely able to acommodate a scaled-down G7 finance minister's meeting . I doubt very much that Iqaluit or Inuvik could contain the vastly larger G20.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Fine. Rent a nice cruise ship, anchor it in Frobisher Bay, and shuttle the dignitaries from YFB to the ship. I'm sure the local office/studios of CBC North could conjure up a "fake inukshuk" for the assembled scribes.

Mike T.

That would actually be an interesting idea about costing. Seeing how France and England laughed at harper's overspending, if other governments had been in on it from the start, cooler heads might have prevailed and this mess could have been averted or lessened.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

I guess it's an idea that makes too much sense and is thus officially/bureaucratically unacceptable. But if every participating nation were made to contribute a portion of summit costs (at a differential rate proportional to its GDP), the cost-per-nation would be a relative pittance, even for an absurdly over-priced summit like Harper's.
http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

Maybe they could BYOB too!

If you host an event, you pay for the event. There is plenty to debate about the usefullness of these summits. and the cited cost of this one is purely ridiculous, but that's our fault, not the fault of our guests. Put the responsibility where it belongs.

For the cost and the bad location decisions, you've got the federal government.
For the "pretend" laws, you've got the provincial government.
For the wholesale human rights abuses, perpetrated under the pretend law, you've got Chief Blair and his goon squad.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

If you host an event, you pay for the event.

Sure, but there's a built-in inequity here: the vast majority of G20 meetings are going to occur in the developed West, meaning a handful of countries are going to pay the cost, for ever. Do you really think we're going to see a G20 meeting in Brazil or Argentina anytime soon?
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

And, brown bag their own lunches

http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

What is wrong with these Liberals? You have 1000 peaceful protesters detained illegally, and you have some windows smashed at Starbucks, and what did the Liberals focus on?

The busted windows, naturally.

The political choices in this country are between disgust and despair. For the love of God, can't someone oppose this Conservative government?

avr

The Liberals know there's more votes in opposing broken windows than opposing harassment of mostly unpleasant-hippie-types. That your priorities differ is of no consequence.

http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

Yeah, that's what I think too. It would hardly be remarkable at all if it weren't for the fact that the Liberals are lead by a "Champion of Human Rights." It's not surprising that you're not worried about a few smelly hippy types – it's part of your charm – but it's a little surprising that the Liberals seem to be on your side of the issue. Maybe Iggy is trying to channel the "Just watch me" side of Trudeau rather than the Charter of Rights side.

Thumbs away!!!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

I'm a Liberal, but I won't pretend to speak for "the Liberals" here. I will tell you what I personally think. I have asked the question all over the place and haven't gotten anything like a legitimate answer yet, but I don't know why protestors protest these big events. It's not like whatever cause they are protesting for ever sees the light of day, and it's not like these proetets aren't guaranteed to have some idiotic hoodlum element join the fray. So, why? To prove to the police that you've got rights? Why are the protestors against the police, anyway? (Okay, on Sunday I can well see why they were against the police, but I meant before the police stupidity) So, two stupids don't make a "right". Heh. There are Constitutional responsibilities of citizenship as well as just Constitutional rights, I mean.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Jenn, I suspect it is a combination of possible motives for the protesters.

One, it is an opportunity for the earnest social-justice types to get together to protest the champagne and caviar for the powerful while many go hungry. Because the champagne and caviar image is delivered to them on a platter, so to speak.

Two, it is a way to impress the earnest babes who are there for reason number One.

Three, it is a way to rely on the distractions offered by those following reasons One or Two to safely smash and burn with a minimal likelihood of arrest.

The number One people may not be aware of the parasitic nature of the Two people and the Three people. Or they may be aware and embrace them anyways. Or they may be aware and just don't care.
http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

Mark Holland _does_ speak for the Liberals, in his press release, available in full on the Liberal Party website. And the topic he's chosen to speak about is property damage.

I have asked the question all over the place and haven't gotten anything like a legitimate answer yet, but I don't know why protestors protest these big events. Well, with all due respect, it's your question that is illegitimate. People have the right to protest in this country and they are not required to justify their protests to you or anyone else. It's a fundamental freedom guaranteed in the Charter of Rights. That document that you Liberals like to champion as one of your greatest achievements. Your last statement is a cliché without foundation.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

I get that, and it is a fundamental freedom. And I suppose if it came right down to it, I'd have to defend a protestors right to protest. But it's also stupid, at least as far as I can tell right now, to take advantage of that freedom at a big event like that.

You don't think citizens bear responsibilities as well as rights?
http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

Yes, they have a responsibility, and you do too, to defend the rights of others when they are being trampled, rather than suggest those rights are somehow illegitimate or strategically incorrect. We either have the rights, all of us, or we don't.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Absolutely! And so I shall. My displeasure with protestors protesting this particular event in no way gives a pass to the behaviour of the police. I'd like to understand what on earth was up with standing idly by while the blockheads smashed windows, looted and burned cars–then arresting everyone in sight merely for being there.

But much in the way that I will defend Steyn for his right to free speech, I won't be overly exuberant in my defence.
lgarvin

"But much in the way that I will defend Steyn for his right to free speech, I won't be overly exuberant in my defence."

This is a good statement of the problem that we all face, we have to defend the rights of people we may dislike or even find offensive. But it's the rights we are defending, not the people. If you are weak in support of the rights of others, then you are also weak in support of your own rights. You are making your support conditional when it ought to be unequovical.

Reader

What about "unpleasant-hippo-types"?

http://intensedebate.com/people/YSP YSP

Weight-ism. ("What, are all fat people unpleasant?????" ——— Sorry, got carried away by the spirit of self-righteous-indignation.)

I just thought I'd point out that people who own things with windows on them in downtown Toronto tend to be big Liberal supporters/donators, while the protesters getting arrested tend to belong to the NDP, Greens, and a whole assortment of even weirder groups. The Liberals are probably at home watching it on TV. (Sorry, got carried away by the spirit of self-righteous stereotyping.)

s_c_f

Why in heck you blame this on the Conservatives is mind-boggling. It's the Toronto police who failed to prevent the broken windows, and the Toronto police who tried to make up for it by detaining every moving person, place and thing over the weekend in a hell-hole, including a TTC employee and numerous journalists.

The Toronto police are employed by the city of Toronto. The people you should be opposing is the Toronto city council and the Ontario government. It's the Ontario government that passed that ridiculous law that the police decided gave them the right to treat pedestrians like criminals.

Neither the federal Liberals nor the federal Conservatives are to blame for this boondoggle.

http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

I'm not blaming the federal Liberals for the boondoggle but I am blaming them for focusing their criticisms on the property damage – which was entirely predictable, even inevitable – and ignoring a massive breach of civil liberties against many hundreds of innocent people.

One of those things is really important and should be opposed loudly, promptly and vigorously, by the Official Opposition to the Government. The other thing – the property damage – is a trivial matter of insurance claims. I don't expect the Conservatives to speak up in defence of human rights. Sadly the only rights they seem to get excited about are the ones specifically not included in the Charter – property rights. Sad that the Liberals are choosing to follow them even there.

Like I said; disgust or despair. Conservative or Liberal.

http://intensedebate.com/people/FACLC FACLC

The mistake that you and Iggy are making is separating the two issues.

The reason there was all this property damage is because of the inept police, and the same inept police acting on the PR-disaster which was the private property damage turned around and started arresting people seemingly at random.

Had police been prepared to take down the property destroyers — with lethal violence if it was required — there might have still been some whining from the hippie crowd about their capitalist-hating brethren being mistreated, but they could have had a well defined standard for the next two days. Some of the Black Block might have even been a no-show, or at the very least they would have been again dealt with differently than German tourists snapping a photo of the streets.

When Group A does Stupid Action B and Stupid Action C, anybody who spends their time being worked up over B or C is wasting their time: the real issue is the inherent stupidity of Group A.

http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

"The mistake that you and Iggy are making is separating the two issues."

I'm afraid that I'll have to take on the full responsibility for the mistake myself, since Iggy hasn't said word one about the issues, at least as far as I've heard. Apparently he likes the Queen's sense of humour, though.

s_c_f

Do you blame the feds when you get a mosquito bite? Do you blame the feds for the potholes in the street? Do you blame the feds when you don't like the service at a restaurant?

Who cares if the feds and the official opposition are ignoring the breach of civil liberties? You yourself, and every single citizen of Canada, has just as much responsibility to do something about it as they do! If you feel that wrong has been done, don't go whining that your betters in the government are failing to listen to your whining. It's up to every citizen in Canada to stand up for our rights.

Blame the people who are responsible. Don't act like a boob and point the finger at the same darn people for every single darn problem in the world. Point the finger at the responsible party. Sometimes the local government is to blame. Sometimes it's the public. Sometimes it's someone else.

I don't care if they are the Official Opposition to the Government. I don't care if they are CSIS, the CIA, the FBI, Monty Python's Flying Circus, or alien invaders. You turn the issue into a farce with such a knee-jerk senseless reaction.

When your home is burgled, don't blame the guy who drove by in his car and failed to stop. Don't blame your pet bird for failing to defend the house. Blame the friggin burglars first, then blame yourself for preventing it, and then blame the local law enforcement.

This is by far the most annoying thing about Canada. People fail to take responsibility, or they fail to bother to try to understand the issues, they fail to do anything to stand up for themselves. Instead they point their lazy blaming finger at the feds for every single darn thing that ever happens, as if we are all a bunch of gerbils in a cage that is managed by the feds. The feds are not in charge of everything. They do not control everything.

Show a little spine and admit there are individuals in this country who shoulder some responsibility for things that happen that are not in the federal government nor in the official opposition. This is not a dictatorship, this is a constitutional democracy where every citizen has equal rights and every citizen has equal powers under the law.

Mike T.

This would have been far more fitting in ALL CAPS!!!!!!!
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

For me, using bold is a big step, which was necessary to counter lgarvin's use of bold.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

If the feds threw a mosquito party next door, yeah, I would, at least a little.

But I guess the answer to that is for me to hide indoors and not use my own backyard whenever they come around.
http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

That's quite the rant, scf. It's a pity that it has nothing to do with the post that ostensibly sparked it.

I'm blaming the Liberals for the press release that was issued by their Public Safety Critic and published on their website. I'm blaming the Conservatives for the bad logistical decisions that -indisputably – were made by them… and also for the obscene amount of money they spent. I'm blaming the provincial government for the "pretend" law they passed and the Toronto Police Chief & his minions for widescale abuses of civil liberties. None of this will come as news to anyone who read my previous comments. But apparently it's news to you.

BTW, how do you manage such a long rant? I have to constantly cut stuff from my posts due to length and some people seem to be able to publish novellas. It's weird.
s_c_f

If you are an intense debate member, then you can edit your comment after the first submit, at which time there is no limit to the length.

Yeah, the rant was a little long. I stand by it though. You're just weaseling out of it with your last comment, which was one heck of a non-sequitur. Now you're saying you meant a whole lot of things you said at some other point in time on some other page. So if that's what you meant, then why did you write this additional comment, if it's just a repeat?

And frankly, it is news to me. Sorry, but I don't go through each person's comment history to try to figure out their personal histories prior to writing a reply.

But really, my argument stands. We're talking about the protests/cops/detainees in this thread, and for some reason you'd prefer to ignore the real issues and the real culprits and try to divert the conversation into a criticism of the feds about a whole bunch of other stuff, irrelevant to this conversation, for no apparent reason, other than to continue blaming the feds for everything.

Richard

It's funny how the people who are most adamant that a small handful of violent protesters do not represent the whole, are the first ones to light up comments based on the assumption that one vocal MP represents all that is "Liberal" in this country.

lgarvin

I don't know the people"…who are most adamant that a small handful of violent protesters do not represent the whole." but I am one of the people who thinks a press release issued by the Liberal Party Public Safety Critic and published on the Liberal Party Website is indeed representing the official position of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Call me a literalist drudge, but that's just the way I roll.

dave

The people you should be opposing is the Toronto city council and the Ontario government.

By all accounts, the Toronto City Council at best didn't want it and, at worst, since they had to host it wanted on the outskirts of the city core at the CNE where everything could have been better contained. The Federal Government refused this suggestion; apparently driven by the intrinsically flawed belief that "no one goes downtown in Toronto on the weekend" clouding their planning as to how much of an inconvenience shutting down the site they insisted on (the Metro Toronto Convention Centre), was going to be on the city.

The Federal Government is as much responsible for the failings of the event as everyone else because they failed to listen to the advice they were given and crashed forward in their incompet insistence on shutting down a city core that is the exact opposite of most urban centres in terms of how vital it's been kept.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Wait a second. Toronto council DID approve the summit and its location. It was the Toronto police force that was primarily responsible for security. So, you can try to pin the blame on the feds all you want. The city itself is in no position to point fingers at anyone, nor is the provincial government.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

One reason might be that the store windows is a cut&dried issue at the federal level. Once Harper put the G20 in Toronto, there was bound to be property damage… so Harper owns those broken windows. The broken windows in and of themselves are not important, however the massive cost of lost business in Toronto is a big issue. Many might think it absurd that immediately following the G8 with its focus on the delicate challenge of transferring the onus for recovery to the private sector that Canada's largest economic engine was shut down.

The police actions wrt the protesters involves a whole series of decisions made by the protest groups, the Ontario government, the police themselves and the federal government. It is going to take some time to unravel, it is likely to be messy and as others have pointed out… it is at least initially a provincial issue. It is more important than the windows (and as a result will be an issue for much longer). However, it will also take some time and process to determine who was responsible for what.

http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

You make some good points. In all honesty, I am not all that concerned about business losses because – again – insurance covers those losses. The insurance industry is quite solvent ( thankyouverymuch) and can pursue their own interests without the aide and sympathy of the Liberal Party. It's seems particularly tone-deaf for the Liberals to jump onside with those poor banks and that plucky little Starbucks chain when the most coherent rationale for these protests is the perceived cozyness between big-government and big business to the detriment of individuals. It's ironic, you might say, that the Liberals are so quick to jump ahead of the Conservatives to claim, in effect, that it's those poor put-upon investment banks that are the real victims here.

http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

(Cont.)

And still, not one word from the former director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard, the Chancellor Jackman Professor in Human Rights Policy at the University of Toronto, and a senior fellow of the university's Munk Centre for International Studies. Not a word about a massive, unprecedented and widely publicized breach of human rights, in the heart of Toronto. Is it possible he hasn't heard about it yet? That's what I'm talking about when I complain of the horrible performance of the Liberals in opposition. You don't have to point the finger unfairly or pre-emptively in order to express concern about the issue. An issue that is a no-brainer, after all. " Wholesale, unlawful detention of random citizens? Yeah, we're against that."

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

I hope Ignatieff manages this issue well, because it is clearly an emotional issue for many people. (Not his natural strength.) That said, the man is who is is. His response will be nuanced and reasoned… and as a result most Canadians will tune out before he finishes his thought. I would not look for him to rail against the police without putting their situation in context. We still don't know what the police were instructed and when (i.e. Is there an Iperwash moment?) The claims of outrageous abuse of prisoners (see Holly below) will have to be verified or proven inaccurate.

ps the businesses that really took a wack were neither the Starbucks nor the banks, nor the insurance companies. The brunt of the financial impact was borne by small business owners, who still have not seen much of the financial recovery. Of course when these people get hit they don't have the resources to cover their loses, so that they almost immediately cut their employment.
lgarvin

Small business owners don't set up shop in the most expensive commercial real estate in the country. It's not like I have zero sympathy for business people who were effected but let's be blunt; 90% (or better) of those effected are large corporate entities – that's why they were targeted, after all. But they have insurance for that very reason, it's a business expense – tax deductible – that businesses pay (or decline to pay) as they best see fit to maximize their profits. It's a business arrangement between the Insurer and the Insured.

It's ridiculous that the Liberals are pushing for a compensation package for a bunch of well-heeled corporate clients and playing dumb about the trampling of human rights for ordinary citizens.

Holly Stick

Here is Tommy Taylor's full account of the illegal treatment of prisoners…
http://backofthebook.ca/2010/07/01/how-i-got-arre…

And Toronto Sun columnist Rachel Sa comments on Tommy's story:

"…That’s what we face in Toronto in the aftermath of the G20 debacle amid reports of police misconduct. Officers making Holocaust jokes, mocking people begging for water and laughing at detained women forced to urinate in public and wipe themselves while handcuffed…"
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/rach…

"…An officer there had tried to grab my cellphone. Other officers had crowded around. They boisterously mocked the psychiatric patients coming out of the mental-health hospital behind me. .."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/of-a…
http://intensedebate.com/people/NorthernPoV NorthernPoV

Well, Harper did keep ONE promise:
That we would not recognize Canada after he had his way.

bohica

http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

That was Mulroney's pledge, not Harper's, but I get your point. The Harperoids are just finishing Mulroney's national demolition job.

Holly Stick

Jeffrey Sachs on the failure of the G8

"…It is absurd and troubling to spend $1bn on three days of meetings under any circumstances (since there are much cheaper ways to have such meetings and much better uses for the money). But it is tragic to spend so much money and then accomplish next to nothing in terms of concrete results and honest accountability…."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/…

Meanwhile, Harper has been pretending to care about human rights:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100703/nationa…
Mark R

Aaron missed this one from Christie Blatchford. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/self…

Self-anointed G20 ‘journalists’ should get real

…Second, the press pass doesn’t grant even traditional journalists carte blanche access everywhere.
In the midst of a riot, it is not a shield that can be waved to keep either police or rioters at bay. It is neither an avoid-jail nor get-out-of-jail-free card…..
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

…the press pass doesn’t grant even traditional journalists carte blanche access everywhere…

Yeah, they should have known to avoid conventionally restricted areas, like public streets and sidewalks.

Hand it to Blatchford, though: she has the credibility-fortifying benefit of detachment and distance on this issue, having spent the G20 weekend sharing tea and crumpets with the wives of G20 leaders and scurrying back home to write an embarrassing puff piece about the trivial experience. She's clearly an authority.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Open_Democracy Open_Democracy

"Dalton McGuinty speaks and punts."

Speaking of punting Dalton McGuinty….

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/
Barnaby Jones

Harper, McGuinty, Blair and Miller have ruined the good name of Canada, the good name of Toronto, and the good name of the Toronto police services.

News outlets from all over the world are reporting on the real story of the G20 protests and Canadian media outlets, who are protecting the government by refusing to present an accurate depiction of the events of the weekend, are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into reality.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

and Rex Murphy discusses how the heat is off Harper, how he continues to stay above the fray, is blessed with weak opposition, and is probably agitating for a snap fall election. Personally, I'm not so sure about the last one.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

The most troubling story for a freedom-loving Canada:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/…

Thanks for the link, Aaron. Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is why you don't place the circus downtown. At least, not anymore. You create incredible inexcusable disruption even if nothing goes wrong. You keep thousands of people from going about their business. Those you cannot prevent, like, say, a TTC worker on his way to work, end up suffering wrongful arrest and shameful treatment. Mr. Yau could have been any one of us, law-abiding people just trying to do our jobs.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

I hope everybody in the country knows his name by mid-week.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

You can't be serious. Yes, it was a mistake. But national tragedy? Methinks there's a wee bit of hyperbole going on around here. A wee bit.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

But national tragedy? Methinks there's a wee bit of hyperbole going on around here.

Not hyperbole. Invention on your part. Not that reading has been your strong point over a few months around here. But I must hasten to point out to anyone who might actually believe you: people, nowhere above does either MYL or H_O mention "national tragedy." Go ahead and confirm for yourself.

And, given that I now recall who you are, I will give to you the opportunity for the last word, because on two separate days in the past I committed the brutal blunder of taking you seriously enough to engage in a conversation.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Let me get this straight. You want an answer from me, but you're trying to discredit me even before I give that answer. What kind of a coward are you?

Here is what Halo_Override wrote: I hope everybody in the country knows his name by mid-week.

Sounds like a national tragedy to me. It's also my perception of the kinds of posts people are making here. Or is that not allowed in your oh-so-tolerant and brilliant intellectual universe? My God.

You can't respond, so you have to resort to this arrogant and unresponsive nonsense. Congratulations, genius. Amazing how people on here keep proving my points for me. And they think they're the smartest people in the room. It's why they go nuts when anybody dares to challenge them. Like a totalitarian state. They then turn around and yell and scream about "democracy" in the wake of G20. You can't make this stuff up. Unbelievable.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

Let me get this straight.

We won't hold our breath.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Who do you speak for again? The Free Breathers Society? The Non Responders Club? The Communist Party of Canada? Who?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

…still not holding our breath, for reasons you've just clarified.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Again, who do you speak for? And why can't you conjure up a half decent post in response?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

Thanks for the link, MYL. I hadn't heard of Yau's case.

The more of these stories that come to light, the better. It's important to neutralise the knuckle-head meme that the only people who got assaulted were the punks who had it coming.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Your thanks should more properly be directed to Aaron, for he (admittedly somewhat misleadingly) provided the "TTC employee got tackled" link in this post. Mr. Yau suffered way more than an undeserved tackle.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

But weren't the majority who were dealt with by the police "punks who had it coming?"

http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

I suspect that that majority of the convicted murderers sent to Her Majesty's Canadian prisons have it coming, which in no way makes the few travesties of justice such as David Milgaard's and Donald Marshall's any less repugnant and deserving of public outrage.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

That's funny, because you claimed people are making the argument that only the "punks who had it coming" were assaulted. Yet I haven't seen anyone actually make that argument. So you'll forgive me for being inexact when it comes to numbers. I suppose I was only following your cue.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

Yet I haven't seen anyone actually make that argument…

Then you should read more. You can start with the fatuous Blatchford piece linked to above.

What's funny is that I haven't seen you call for an independent investigation or inquiry despite your implicit acknowledgment that innocents were assaulted. Funny, indeed.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

You're more than welcome to actually cite your rather dubious claim about Blatchford or anyone else.

I do think the police tactics used during the summits should be at least reviewed. But, again, I'm not quite so sure it's the end of the world as we know it, at least according to some of the posters here. Security at these events is a huge job. Police lay back, and they get criticized. They crack down, and they get criticized.

Personally, I'd rather lay blame at the feet of the thugs, and I suspect so, too, do most Canadians.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

I'll also add that, despite some of the rather odd attempts here to paint Canada as some kind of police state, there has been no lack of criticism of all levels of government in the wake of these summits, and no attempt to suppress such criticism by these same levels of government, or by the police. So, personally, I think Canadian democracy isn't as threatened as some like to suggest.

Call Me George

In a democratic country, the main role of the police is to protect the lives and property of citizens.
In authoritarian countries the main role of the police is to protect the political leaders.

One outcome of hosting a global summit may cause a transformation of how a local police force and their management conceives its role within society. Another outcome is my real pride in seeing that a portion of the public sees what has happened and is strongly opposing it.

An observation (and a disappointment) is seeing the the committed ideological chattering class commenting here are again commenting from a purely self delusional partisan political perspective – "I'll only minusculelly protect your rights – but only if I am forced to" … with some non-partisan exceptions like Janice Rose's comment …. what a sad lot most of you are!

I call for and support a full, open and transparent public inquiry.
John D

I got my print version of Macleans in the mail, and I'm pretty disgusted by the coverage of the G20. They could have basically handed the issue over to Steyn.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

I'll also add that the same people who constantly praise the need for these kinds of summits, internationalism, Canadian international leadership and engagement, and so on, are the first people to trash such things the second that it's Harper who's pursuing them. Fascinating that.