Catelli's twin posts concerning the recent G20 fiasco in Toronto have forced an evolution in my thinking. I especially like his insight that there were two mobs, one of protesters, one of police, each with different agendas: violence was inevitable.
So far, the agents provocateurs story I fully expected has not come to light yet (give it a little more time...) But we do have Chief Blair admitting the "law" that allowed police to arrest anyone who strayed too close to the perimeter never actually existed. Cue howls of outrage.
My dad once told me (completely different context) that if you comb deeply enough through the law books, you can find a reason to arrest anybody. Sure enough, looking at the relevant statute, I find the following:
3.A guard or peace officer,
(a) may require any person entering or attempting to enter any public work or any approach thereto to furnish his or her name and address, to identify himself or herself and to state the purpose for which he or she desires to enter the public work, in writing or otherwise;
(b) may search, without warrant, any person entering or attempting to enter a public work or a vehicle in the charge or under the control of any such person or which has recently been or is suspected of having been in the charge or under the control of any such person or in which any such person is a passenger; and
(c) may refuse permission to any person to enter a public work and use such force as is necessary to prevent any such person from so entering. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55, s. 3.
The way I read the above--bolded text mine, and important--Chief Blair's wrong: since the site was declared a "public work", albeit in secret, his force is in the clear. I'm not sure what's more disturbing, actually: that police can, without warrant, arrest and search somebody simply for being too close to "a public work"...or that Blair didn't know this...or that not knowing this, he instructed his police to act as if he did.
Were Canadian citizens' freedoms trampled? Absolutely. Was it justified? Probably not. Do I care? Not in the slightest.
See, here's the thing. We have rights in this country, the right of assembly being one of them. What we do not have, and should have, is a corresponding Charter of Obligations and Responsibilities. The right to assemble; the responsibility to do it peacefully. And if mob rule prevents such a thing, and a mob can be reasonably forecast...the obligation to stay away. Or to get away if violence suddenly blooms in your midst. That's why I wouldn't have dreamed of exercising my right to assemble in that particular area. That and the pointlessness of it all.
My first instinct is to defend peace officers. They have a thankless and in some cases impossible job, and they do it better than can be expected most of the time. There are exceptions, of course: rogue cops and horridly mismanaged incidents like the Dziekanski affair. As Catelli notes, "don't blame the officers...blame the REMFs that put them there."
Why was this thing held in Toronto? Some have suggested it was Stephen Harper's "gift" to the city, in thanks for the precisely zero seats he won in it last election. If that is indeed the case, Harper is even more of a petty and vindictive man than I'd thought. "To showcase the city"? What fresh and odorous ordure is this? The world media saw the usual: streets empty but for black-clad thugs, making Toronto indistinguishable from Pittsburgh last year, Seattle in 1999, Paris next year... And the presidents and prime ministers couldn't care less where they are: after all, they're not tourists, but chess players.
"One town's very like another with your head down over your pieces, brother"
--Tim Rice, "One Night In Bangkok", from Chess
Catelli suggests CFB Base Borden in Barrie as an ideal location. I was going to suggest CFB Petawawa or perhaps the training facility at Meaford on the grounds the surrounding population's much smaller. The benefits are threefold: one, the perimeter is secured at considerably cheaper cost; two, any protesters who do show up have to work to get there, they can't just amble out of Mommy's basement and take a subway; three, there's considerably less stuff to destroy.
I'm just glad it's over. As, I'm sure, are the police, many of whom worked extremely long hours and endured conditions I'd rather not think about.
2 comments:
I still say an aircraft carrier is the way to go, seriously.
My wife did make a very good point on that. She said any country that tried that for a summit would be a world laughingstock. "What, you're that afraid of a few protesters?" Plus, she said, instead of one big protest near the summit site you'd have dozens, perhaps scores of protests everywhere.
Post a Comment