I'm pleased to see the press continuing to examine the abuses of authority that took place last week in Toronto, especially given Premier McGuinty's facile dismissal of the seriousness of the Charter Rights violations. I have highlighted in bold certain parts of Walkom's column that I think warrant particular attention:
Walkom: The G20 summit’s grim lessons for civil liberties
By Thomas Walkom National Affairs Columnist
Two things stand out from the street riots and subsequent police actions that swept downtown Toronto last weekend.
The first is the state blatantly abused its powers. Summits legitimately require security; but in this one, governments went over the top.
The federal government transformed the city’s downtown into a no-go zone. The provincial government secretly passed new regulations to give police extraordinary search and seizure powers and then, when citizens found out, pretended that it hadn’t. The police used their authority to prevent breaches of the peace as an excuse to jail citizens who were committing no crimes.
The second is that most people don’t care. Polls show that more than 70 per cent of Torontonians approve of these abuses.
For that we can thank the small group of rioters who burned police cars and smashed store windows last Saturday. The logic behind those actions (and yes there is a logic) flows from the theory that capitalism is based on violence, albeit violence that is usually veiled. By provoking the state, this intrinsic violence will be revealed, thereby radicalizing the population against both capitalism and the state.
The problem with this theory, as the Red Brigades and other left-wing terrorists found in the 1970s, is that such provocations drive the general population to authoritarianism, not revolution.
Faced with a choice between order and civil liberties, people almost invariably choose order. Think the Nazis in 1930s Germany; think the PATRIOT Act in post 9/11 America.
In last weekend’s brouhaha, governments and the so-called anarchists fed on and supported one another. By threatening to disrupt the summit, the anarchists ensured that the fence would be built. By building the fence, the government ensured that the anarchists would try to attack it. Each side kept upping the ante until the events of last weekend became almost inevitable.
In the end, the violence that always lies behind state authority did show itself to those who had assumed they were immune.
Andrew MacIsaac, a 24-year-old lawyer observing the demonstrations for the Law Union, was swept up by police early Sunday morning and held at the Eastern Ave. detention centre for almost 20 hours. He tells a now-familiar story.
MacIsaac says he and others in the peaceful protest were arrested under the broad authority of police to detain those they think might be about to engage in a breach of the peace.
He was not permitted to contact a lawyer; he was kept handcuffed in a cage with others. He was given two cheese sandwiches over the period and three styrofoam cups of water. The open portable toilet in his cage had no toilet paper (MacIsaac tore off part of his shirt sleeve to help a fellow inmate); he was never formally notified of the charges—if any—levied against him.
In police state terms, this is relatively minor. MacIsaac wasn’t chained in stress positions, as he might have been at Guantanamo Bay. Nor was he flayed with rubber cables, as he might have been in Egypt.
But what’s interesting is that some of the elements of classic authoritarian detention were there, albeit in embryonic forms. He was kept deliberately disoriented; usually, he didn’t know what time it was. He was kept uncomfortable; the combination of bound wrists and concrete floor made it impossible for him to sleep. His sense of self-worth was undermined by an array of minor indignities such as the lack of toilet paper.
In particular, he was kept isolated from the outside world. Requests to call a lawyer were never formally denied, just put off to some undefined and never-reached point in the future.
At one point, an official in plain-clothes told him that the federal government had declared martial law.
When he was released, MacIsaac phoned his mother (it was her birthday). Then, in what may be a fitting epitaph for the entire Toronto G20 Summit disaster, he describes what he did next.
“I took a cab home and I wept.”
Thomas Walkom's column appears Wednesday and Saturday.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
A Mother's Lament
There is a fine letter in today's Hamilton Spectator which I am taking the liberty of reproducing below. Eloquently expressed, the writer addresses the abuses of authority that transpired in Toronto last weekend, but hers is a very personal, as well as philosophical, expression of concern over our basic rights.
Mourning Canadian democracy
July 03, 2010
Roberta McQuade
The Hamilton Spectator
Hamilton
(Jul 3, 2010)
Re: G20 summit and policing
The fallout from the debacle of the G20 will felt by all Canadians for some time to come. Today, I mourn the loss of my innocence, in believing I live in a democracy. I did not celebrate Canada Day. That morning at dawn, I removed all my Canada Day flags and decorations from my property.
By virtue of my profession, I travel the world. I have seen first-hand the police actions in third world countries directed at those who would "dare to speak out" and have their voices heard.
To think I would see the "trampling" of our collective rights and the right to "free speech" being discarded is devastating to me as a once proud Canadian. The actions of police in arresting and charging those who were peacefully exercising their rights is something I would expect to witness anywhere else but Canada.
The words "the true north strong and free" of our national anthem are now a mockery.
My youngest daughter was a victim of this suspension of our rights. She was arrested and charged with unlawful assembly and obstruct police. This young woman headed the largest ever contingent of university students to post-Katrina New Orleans, on a Habitat build, this young woman slept in -30C temps outdoors to highlight the plight of the homeless, this young woman volunteers with a soup kitchen. This young woman is a dedicated pacifist who would not even kill a bug.
And this young woman is the daughter of a policeman who was on G20 duty. The police officer who beat her with his/her baton would not have known that. Not everyone was an "anarchist" and armed. Some like my daughter were just there to suport their causes in a peaceful, lawful manner.
I for one will be asking the hard questions of my MPP and MP. And I will voice my outrage and "punish" those who allowed this travesty to happen by my vote in the next elections.
Nothing less than a public inquiry is in order. Canada's reputation for freedom and democracy has suffered a black eye in the court of public opinion, not only here at home, but worldwide.
Mourning Canadian democracy
July 03, 2010
Roberta McQuade
The Hamilton Spectator
Hamilton
(Jul 3, 2010)
Re: G20 summit and policing
The fallout from the debacle of the G20 will felt by all Canadians for some time to come. Today, I mourn the loss of my innocence, in believing I live in a democracy. I did not celebrate Canada Day. That morning at dawn, I removed all my Canada Day flags and decorations from my property.
By virtue of my profession, I travel the world. I have seen first-hand the police actions in third world countries directed at those who would "dare to speak out" and have their voices heard.
To think I would see the "trampling" of our collective rights and the right to "free speech" being discarded is devastating to me as a once proud Canadian. The actions of police in arresting and charging those who were peacefully exercising their rights is something I would expect to witness anywhere else but Canada.
The words "the true north strong and free" of our national anthem are now a mockery.
My youngest daughter was a victim of this suspension of our rights. She was arrested and charged with unlawful assembly and obstruct police. This young woman headed the largest ever contingent of university students to post-Katrina New Orleans, on a Habitat build, this young woman slept in -30C temps outdoors to highlight the plight of the homeless, this young woman volunteers with a soup kitchen. This young woman is a dedicated pacifist who would not even kill a bug.
And this young woman is the daughter of a policeman who was on G20 duty. The police officer who beat her with his/her baton would not have known that. Not everyone was an "anarchist" and armed. Some like my daughter were just there to suport their causes in a peaceful, lawful manner.
I for one will be asking the hard questions of my MPP and MP. And I will voice my outrage and "punish" those who allowed this travesty to happen by my vote in the next elections.
Nothing less than a public inquiry is in order. Canada's reputation for freedom and democracy has suffered a black eye in the court of public opinion, not only here at home, but worldwide.
Friday, July 2, 2010
The Premier Comes Out of Hiding
Well, Premier McGuinty has finally emerged from hiding, likely having seen the Angus Reid poll revealing that “73 per cent of Torontonians and two-thirds of Canadians believe police treatment of protesters was justified during the G20 summit. “
His confidence thus bolstered that there will be minimal political fallout from last weekend's Charter Rights' violations by the Toronto Police, and his Government's failure to correct the fallacies about 'non-existent' powers, McGuinty's performance (seven days in the making!) suggested a man somewhat truculent and completely unapologetic for the incredibly serious abuses of ordinary citizens' rights last week. Adamant in his refusal to call an inquiry, McGuinty said that those who felt their rights had been 'abridged' (I love that euphemism) have adequate avenues for redress. Sadly, this is yet another instance of the Premier's failure of leadership in that his 'solution' does nothing to shed light on the systemic failure that led to the aforementioned 'abridgement' of Charter Rights. Until the reasons for that failure are known, Canadians dare not rest easy.
BTW, my nose is still raw.
His confidence thus bolstered that there will be minimal political fallout from last weekend's Charter Rights' violations by the Toronto Police, and his Government's failure to correct the fallacies about 'non-existent' powers, McGuinty's performance (seven days in the making!) suggested a man somewhat truculent and completely unapologetic for the incredibly serious abuses of ordinary citizens' rights last week. Adamant in his refusal to call an inquiry, McGuinty said that those who felt their rights had been 'abridged' (I love that euphemism) have adequate avenues for redress. Sadly, this is yet another instance of the Premier's failure of leadership in that his 'solution' does nothing to shed light on the systemic failure that led to the aforementioned 'abridgement' of Charter Rights. Until the reasons for that failure are known, Canadians dare not rest easy.
BTW, my nose is still raw.
Adam Radwanski - Part 2
I was pleased to see that the Globe's Adam Radwanski is continuing to ask the questions that need to be asked about the abuse of power and the trammeling of our Chart Rights at last weekend's G20 Summit. Below I am reproducing the note I sent him this morning commending his efforts thus far, followed by today's column:
Dear Mr. Radwanski,
Just a short note to thank you for your ongoing analysis of the actions of the police and the McGuinty Government during Toronto's G20 Summit. While it is undoubtedly the hope of both Chief Blair and Premiere McGuinty that this issue will soon fade from Canadians' consciousness, journalistic efforts such as yours will go a long way toward ensuring this doesn't happen. You and the Globe are to be commended for your continued examination of last weekend's very troubling curtailment of Charter Rights, police and government deception, and betrayal of public trust.
Keep up the excellent work.
A timeline on the G20 five-metre rule that didn’t exist
How the law on the summit security fence was misinterpreted is shrouded in confusion
Adam Radwanski
From Friday's Globe and Mail Published on Thursday, Jul. 01, 2010 7:36PM EDT Last updated on Thursday, Jul. 01, 2010 10:44PM EDT
The story around a G20 security regulation quietly passed by the Ontario government has continually changed.
Both the province and Toronto police now acknowledge there was no rule that people merely passing by the summit’s security fence were required to submit to searches and identification checks, and could be arrested if they failed to comply. But how the law was misinterpreted by police, and why the public was allowed to believe until the summit’s conclusion that it was still being enforced, remains shrouded in confusion.
What follows is a timeline of the secret law that wasn’t, taking into account the recent revelation that police were finally told by the province – after at least a couple of arrests – that they were wrongly interpreting the regulation they themselves had asked for.
June 2: On the request of Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, Dalton McGuinty's cabinet approves a temporary regulation affecting the Public Works Protection Act. Its aim is to ensure that police are legally authorized to search and demand identification of anyone attempting to enter the security perimeter in downtown Toronto during the G20 summit. There is no announcement.
June 16: The regulation is quietly posted on the government's e-Laws website, but passes unnoticed. (It's not slated to be published in the Ontario Gazette until July 3.)
June 22: When explicitly asked by The Globe and Mail which laws provide for the security measures taken during the G20, two spokespeople for the Integrated G20 Security Unit – including at least one member of the Toronto police – fail to mention the Public Works Protection Act.
June 24: The regulation first comes to light, as at least two activists are arrested under the Public Works Protection Act. Neither appears to have been trying to enter the perimeter. In both cases, police cite a rule that extends their identification and search powers to five metres outside the security fence.
June 25: It's widely reported that, under the provincial regulation, individuals passing by up to five metres outside the security fence can be arrested by police if they fail to show identification or consent to a search. (The regulation, on first glance, appears to confirm this power.)
June 25: At a news conference, Chief Blair says, “The five-metre zone around the fence is for the protection of the security barrier.”
June 25: In an interview, Mr. McGuinty seems to confirm a major change to the law by referring to “something extraordinary happening inside our province,” while affirming his faith in Chief Blair.
June 25: Police realize they'd misinterpreted the regulation, and the “five metres” actually refers to an area inside the fence. (It’s later reported that it was the province that informed them – see below.)
June 26-27: Despite continued media coverage of the “five-metre” rule, no attempt is made by either the province or the police to make clear that it doesn't exist. As a result, Torontonians and visitors remain under the impression that they can be arrested just for passing by the security fence without identification.
June 27: To counter complaints that Ontarians weren't made aware of the new law, the government directs reporters to an advertisement taken out by Toronto police in some newspapers prior to the summit. The ad, titled “What you need to know about the G20 Summit,” makes no mention of the Public Works Protection Act, any recent provincial decisions, or a five-metre rule.
June 28: When contacted, the Premier’s Office discusses the five-metre rule without indicating that it didn't actually exist.
June 29: Chief Blair acknowledges that the five-metre rule never existed, but hints that he didn't correct the record because he “was trying to keep the criminals out.”
June 29: When asked by The Globe and Mail whether any action was taken by the government to get police to stop wrongly enforcing the regulation, a provincial spokesperson responds: “The application of the regulation over the weekend was operational in nature, and we do not interfere in police operational decisions.” The spokesperson also insists “the language of the regulation is very clear.”
June 29: Another government official acknowledges that the regulation was “confusing,” but says that – despite contradictory video evidence – the government does not believe there were any arrests under the non-existent rule.
June 30: The Police Services Board tells The Globe and Mail that, in fact, it was the province that informed police on June 25 – following the arrests – that the regulation was being wrongly interpreted.
That, at least, is the version of events as it currently stands. Given the number of times that the official accounts have shifted over the past week, it may well change again before long.
Dear Mr. Radwanski,
Just a short note to thank you for your ongoing analysis of the actions of the police and the McGuinty Government during Toronto's G20 Summit. While it is undoubtedly the hope of both Chief Blair and Premiere McGuinty that this issue will soon fade from Canadians' consciousness, journalistic efforts such as yours will go a long way toward ensuring this doesn't happen. You and the Globe are to be commended for your continued examination of last weekend's very troubling curtailment of Charter Rights, police and government deception, and betrayal of public trust.
Keep up the excellent work.
A timeline on the G20 five-metre rule that didn’t exist
How the law on the summit security fence was misinterpreted is shrouded in confusion
Adam Radwanski
From Friday's Globe and Mail Published on Thursday, Jul. 01, 2010 7:36PM EDT Last updated on Thursday, Jul. 01, 2010 10:44PM EDT
The story around a G20 security regulation quietly passed by the Ontario government has continually changed.
Both the province and Toronto police now acknowledge there was no rule that people merely passing by the summit’s security fence were required to submit to searches and identification checks, and could be arrested if they failed to comply. But how the law was misinterpreted by police, and why the public was allowed to believe until the summit’s conclusion that it was still being enforced, remains shrouded in confusion.
What follows is a timeline of the secret law that wasn’t, taking into account the recent revelation that police were finally told by the province – after at least a couple of arrests – that they were wrongly interpreting the regulation they themselves had asked for.
June 2: On the request of Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, Dalton McGuinty's cabinet approves a temporary regulation affecting the Public Works Protection Act. Its aim is to ensure that police are legally authorized to search and demand identification of anyone attempting to enter the security perimeter in downtown Toronto during the G20 summit. There is no announcement.
June 16: The regulation is quietly posted on the government's e-Laws website, but passes unnoticed. (It's not slated to be published in the Ontario Gazette until July 3.)
June 22: When explicitly asked by The Globe and Mail which laws provide for the security measures taken during the G20, two spokespeople for the Integrated G20 Security Unit – including at least one member of the Toronto police – fail to mention the Public Works Protection Act.
June 24: The regulation first comes to light, as at least two activists are arrested under the Public Works Protection Act. Neither appears to have been trying to enter the perimeter. In both cases, police cite a rule that extends their identification and search powers to five metres outside the security fence.
June 25: It's widely reported that, under the provincial regulation, individuals passing by up to five metres outside the security fence can be arrested by police if they fail to show identification or consent to a search. (The regulation, on first glance, appears to confirm this power.)
June 25: At a news conference, Chief Blair says, “The five-metre zone around the fence is for the protection of the security barrier.”
June 25: In an interview, Mr. McGuinty seems to confirm a major change to the law by referring to “something extraordinary happening inside our province,” while affirming his faith in Chief Blair.
June 25: Police realize they'd misinterpreted the regulation, and the “five metres” actually refers to an area inside the fence. (It’s later reported that it was the province that informed them – see below.)
June 26-27: Despite continued media coverage of the “five-metre” rule, no attempt is made by either the province or the police to make clear that it doesn't exist. As a result, Torontonians and visitors remain under the impression that they can be arrested just for passing by the security fence without identification.
June 27: To counter complaints that Ontarians weren't made aware of the new law, the government directs reporters to an advertisement taken out by Toronto police in some newspapers prior to the summit. The ad, titled “What you need to know about the G20 Summit,” makes no mention of the Public Works Protection Act, any recent provincial decisions, or a five-metre rule.
June 28: When contacted, the Premier’s Office discusses the five-metre rule without indicating that it didn't actually exist.
June 29: Chief Blair acknowledges that the five-metre rule never existed, but hints that he didn't correct the record because he “was trying to keep the criminals out.”
June 29: When asked by The Globe and Mail whether any action was taken by the government to get police to stop wrongly enforcing the regulation, a provincial spokesperson responds: “The application of the regulation over the weekend was operational in nature, and we do not interfere in police operational decisions.” The spokesperson also insists “the language of the regulation is very clear.”
June 29: Another government official acknowledges that the regulation was “confusing,” but says that – despite contradictory video evidence – the government does not believe there were any arrests under the non-existent rule.
June 30: The Police Services Board tells The Globe and Mail that, in fact, it was the province that informed police on June 25 – following the arrests – that the regulation was being wrongly interpreted.
That, at least, is the version of events as it currently stands. Given the number of times that the official accounts have shifted over the past week, it may well change again before long.
Will Dalton See His Shadow Today?
It has now been seven days since Premier McGuinty last communicated with Ontarians. Like the elusive Wiarton Willy, one wonders when he does finally emerge from his lair whether he will see his metaphorical shadow and go back into hiding, or feel it is safe politically to once more walk among us.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Canada Day 2010
I would like to wish my fellow Canadians a Happy Canada Day, but unfortunately I am not in a celebratory mood, the events of last weekend in Toronto still weighing very heavily on my mind. I was listening to some of the spin being offered by Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair yesterday on CFRB as he was being interviewed by the host, failed politician John Tory. Mr. Tory presented him with questions that, on one level seemed reasonable enough, but upon hearing Bill Blair's responses, I realized were only props to offer the Chief a platform from which he uttered his too pat explanations for the actions of his police as well as his failure to inform the public of the 'fact' that the sweeping powers he allegedly requested months earlier from the MCGuinty Government did not exist. (The latter was explained by telling the audience that he was too busy with protesters to set the record straight.)
As well, interestingly enough, at least in the 45 minutes of the show I heard, no mention was made of the failure of the McGuinty Government to inform the public of the 'truth' about the 5 metre rule.
Incidently, it is now Day 6 since Premiere McGuinty has been heard from, apparently in too many meetings to be able to spend a moment to address some very troubling questions. Or is he hoping that the public has an extraordinarily short attention span and that all will be forgotten by next week?
This morning I read the Globe and Mail's Facts and Arguments page, which offers an eyewitness account of the police storming the peaceful assembly of citizens outside of the detention centre where so many protesters, none of whom were Black Bloc anarchists as far as I know, were being held after having had their Charter Rights violated.
Here is the the essay:
Swept from a peaceful protest
It was like a Sunday school picnic outside the G20 detention centre. Then police officers stormed the crowd of protesters. There was smoke and sounds of shooting
Cinders McLeod
From Thursday's Globe and Mail Published on Wednesday, Jun. 30, 2010 6:05PM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Jun. 30, 2010 6:27PM EDT
It was a slow start to the day. My teenaged son and daughter turned on the television to find that the number of G20 protest-related arrests had risen to 400 from 70 since the Saturday night before.
Craig Kielburger of Me to We and Free the Children fame was interviewing a young woman who was joining a march to the temporary detention centre in Toronto’s east end because her friend had been arrested the night before. My son Diarmid had wanted me to walk with him on Saturday, but it had been some time since I had marched.
I had gone on quite a few during the years I lived in London and Glasgow – including the infamous poll tax march of 1990. I still had my yellow “The Enemy Within” button from the Thatcher days. (My community took ironic possession of her insult). So I knew the spirit wasn’t completely lost. We had spent most of Saturday in front of the TV. Now Diarmid and Anya were asking me if we could join the group at the detention centre.
I had watched that centre grow over the past few months – watched them bring in the concrete ramparts and fencing and witnessed the growing police presence. It was a menacing landmark in my Toronto neighbourhood, and I didn’t feel good about it from the start. I didn’t feel good about the swell of arrests overnight. And I didn’t feel good about teaching my children that we should just sit and let the world be interpreted to us by TV. Did good citizens stay home and mimic the broadcasters or endeavour to find the truth out for themselves?
I thought since the detention centre was local and far away from the G20 security zone, it would be a gentle introduction into the peaceful art of protest. I cared for the community, I cared for the people who were unjustly detained and I cared that my children cared too.
So we got together a knapsack with water and cameras and walked the 15 minutes to the detention centre. My partner David was going to walk our puppy first, then join us.
It was warm and we were chatty as we walked to be part of something. When we arrived, we stood back from the small crowd. Some were sitting, some standing, all facing the police lined up in front of the detention centre. Some were singing, some chanting, some drawing birds in chalk on the pavement. There were young folk, folk my age, folk with dogs, folk with children on their shoulders, older folk and media.
I think there were three releases from the prison in the hour we were there. Every time someone was released, the crowd cheered and the media swarmed. It reminded me of the Sunday school picnic feeling that existed in Trafalgar Square before the horses stormed 20 years ago.
I should have listened to my parallel thinking, for with no warning, there was a sudden penetration and retreat in the crowd. The police had moved in for a couple of arrests.
I called Diarmid and Anya in closer. David was there now. He was our anchor as we moved in and out to take pictures. Tensions eased a little.
Then, without warning, police officers stormed the peaceful crowd, swinging their sticks and throwing people to the ground.
I saw Anya being pushed by one of the group of police. I screamed out her name. They threw the young man next to her to the ground. Diarmid ran toward the skirmish just as a kind boy pulled Anya out of the policemen’s path. She looked so thin and vulnerable and 14 in her short shorts beside the black, violent swarm.
The front line of protesters sat down again, hands held in the air in peace signs, chanting, “We are peaceful, how ’bout you.”
Someone called out to take care because a line of police officers was approaching from the other end of the street. I had just enough time to take in the notion that we were surrounded when a line of riot police moved in on the crowd. There was smoke and sounds of shooting. Diarmid and Anya ran to us and we all turned to run down a side alley. I felt a punch on my back and calmly thought, “Oh, that’s what a rubber bullet feels like.”
We found our way to the nearest street and headed for home. Diarmid and Anya walked side by side, all sibling rivalry forgotten. They now had a common enemy: injustice. They knew the police had a job to do, but what they had witnessed wasn’t it.
There were three haunting moments for me. One was seeing a young girl being slung to the ground and then forced, skinny limbs everywhere, into an unmarked police van. Another was seeing my daughter stand beside danger. That moment will never leave me. And the last was seeing people walking up the street, hands above their heads in surrender as if they had committed some terrible crime. Walking? Talking? Caring? We didn’t commit the criminal act, unless the laws have secretly changed overnight and the powers that be have neglected to inform us of those changes too.
Once home, we downloaded our photos, posted them online and listened to the news tell us what we knew not to be true (that there were no rubber bullets fired). Anya was on the phone to a local news station wanting to tell her story, but she never got through. I understand why it was so important to her, for the same reason I wrote this.
We tell our stories to regain our sense of self and our sense of our rights after they have been so brutally, and without warning, taken away from us. We tell them to protect the values we feel are Canadian. To serve and protect. Whom? What? O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Tell me: Who are the guards of Canada?
Cinders McLeod is a design editor at The Globe and Mail and lives in Toronto.
As well, interestingly enough, at least in the 45 minutes of the show I heard, no mention was made of the failure of the McGuinty Government to inform the public of the 'truth' about the 5 metre rule.
Incidently, it is now Day 6 since Premiere McGuinty has been heard from, apparently in too many meetings to be able to spend a moment to address some very troubling questions. Or is he hoping that the public has an extraordinarily short attention span and that all will be forgotten by next week?
This morning I read the Globe and Mail's Facts and Arguments page, which offers an eyewitness account of the police storming the peaceful assembly of citizens outside of the detention centre where so many protesters, none of whom were Black Bloc anarchists as far as I know, were being held after having had their Charter Rights violated.
Here is the the essay:
Swept from a peaceful protest
It was like a Sunday school picnic outside the G20 detention centre. Then police officers stormed the crowd of protesters. There was smoke and sounds of shooting
Cinders McLeod
From Thursday's Globe and Mail Published on Wednesday, Jun. 30, 2010 6:05PM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Jun. 30, 2010 6:27PM EDT
It was a slow start to the day. My teenaged son and daughter turned on the television to find that the number of G20 protest-related arrests had risen to 400 from 70 since the Saturday night before.
Craig Kielburger of Me to We and Free the Children fame was interviewing a young woman who was joining a march to the temporary detention centre in Toronto’s east end because her friend had been arrested the night before. My son Diarmid had wanted me to walk with him on Saturday, but it had been some time since I had marched.
I had gone on quite a few during the years I lived in London and Glasgow – including the infamous poll tax march of 1990. I still had my yellow “The Enemy Within” button from the Thatcher days. (My community took ironic possession of her insult). So I knew the spirit wasn’t completely lost. We had spent most of Saturday in front of the TV. Now Diarmid and Anya were asking me if we could join the group at the detention centre.
I had watched that centre grow over the past few months – watched them bring in the concrete ramparts and fencing and witnessed the growing police presence. It was a menacing landmark in my Toronto neighbourhood, and I didn’t feel good about it from the start. I didn’t feel good about the swell of arrests overnight. And I didn’t feel good about teaching my children that we should just sit and let the world be interpreted to us by TV. Did good citizens stay home and mimic the broadcasters or endeavour to find the truth out for themselves?
I thought since the detention centre was local and far away from the G20 security zone, it would be a gentle introduction into the peaceful art of protest. I cared for the community, I cared for the people who were unjustly detained and I cared that my children cared too.
So we got together a knapsack with water and cameras and walked the 15 minutes to the detention centre. My partner David was going to walk our puppy first, then join us.
It was warm and we were chatty as we walked to be part of something. When we arrived, we stood back from the small crowd. Some were sitting, some standing, all facing the police lined up in front of the detention centre. Some were singing, some chanting, some drawing birds in chalk on the pavement. There were young folk, folk my age, folk with dogs, folk with children on their shoulders, older folk and media.
I think there were three releases from the prison in the hour we were there. Every time someone was released, the crowd cheered and the media swarmed. It reminded me of the Sunday school picnic feeling that existed in Trafalgar Square before the horses stormed 20 years ago.
I should have listened to my parallel thinking, for with no warning, there was a sudden penetration and retreat in the crowd. The police had moved in for a couple of arrests.
I called Diarmid and Anya in closer. David was there now. He was our anchor as we moved in and out to take pictures. Tensions eased a little.
Then, without warning, police officers stormed the peaceful crowd, swinging their sticks and throwing people to the ground.
I saw Anya being pushed by one of the group of police. I screamed out her name. They threw the young man next to her to the ground. Diarmid ran toward the skirmish just as a kind boy pulled Anya out of the policemen’s path. She looked so thin and vulnerable and 14 in her short shorts beside the black, violent swarm.
The front line of protesters sat down again, hands held in the air in peace signs, chanting, “We are peaceful, how ’bout you.”
Someone called out to take care because a line of police officers was approaching from the other end of the street. I had just enough time to take in the notion that we were surrounded when a line of riot police moved in on the crowd. There was smoke and sounds of shooting. Diarmid and Anya ran to us and we all turned to run down a side alley. I felt a punch on my back and calmly thought, “Oh, that’s what a rubber bullet feels like.”
We found our way to the nearest street and headed for home. Diarmid and Anya walked side by side, all sibling rivalry forgotten. They now had a common enemy: injustice. They knew the police had a job to do, but what they had witnessed wasn’t it.
There were three haunting moments for me. One was seeing a young girl being slung to the ground and then forced, skinny limbs everywhere, into an unmarked police van. Another was seeing my daughter stand beside danger. That moment will never leave me. And the last was seeing people walking up the street, hands above their heads in surrender as if they had committed some terrible crime. Walking? Talking? Caring? We didn’t commit the criminal act, unless the laws have secretly changed overnight and the powers that be have neglected to inform us of those changes too.
Once home, we downloaded our photos, posted them online and listened to the news tell us what we knew not to be true (that there were no rubber bullets fired). Anya was on the phone to a local news station wanting to tell her story, but she never got through. I understand why it was so important to her, for the same reason I wrote this.
We tell our stories to regain our sense of self and our sense of our rights after they have been so brutally, and without warning, taken away from us. We tell them to protect the values we feel are Canadian. To serve and protect. Whom? What? O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Tell me: Who are the guards of Canada?
Cinders McLeod is a design editor at The Globe and Mail and lives in Toronto.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Thank God for People Like Adam Radwanski
Even though the front page of today's Globe has been taken over by other news, within its pages is an incisive article by Adam Radwanski that is highly critical of both the McGuinty Government and Police Chief Bill Blair. The article follows:
McGuinty washes his hands of police mistreatment allegations
Ontario Liberals prepared to give police carte blanche
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Jun. 29, 2010 10:29PM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Jun. 30, 2010 10:03AM EDT
It’s even worse than it originally appeared.
Not only did Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals place limits on civil liberties without telling anyone – but they also then washed their hands as police misrepresented and misused their new powers.
It’s a glaring abdication of responsibility, reflective of a government overly content to give police carte blanche even in the most volatile situations.
In this instance that free rein seems to have been abused, not least by Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair.
For several days, most everyone was under the impression that the province – through a temporary regulation affecting the Public Works Protection Act – had very quietly given police the power to conduct searches and demand identification up to five metres outside the security fence erected for last weekend’s G20 summit. They were under that impression because police acted as though it was the case.
The legislation was cited in last Thursday’s arrests of at least two activists, neither of whom seems to have tried to enter the zone. There is video evidence of officers citing the five-metre rule as they demanded that one of those activists, a rather harmless-looking, megaphone-wielding member of a group calling itself “the Love Police,” stop filming video well outside the fence.
Chief Blair, who requested the regulation in the first place, now claims that he only realized last Friday that the “five metres” refers to an area inside the fence, at which point he told his officers to stop invoking it. But he seemingly implied to a reporter Tuesday that he was willing to allow the public to continue to think through the weekend that police powers existed where they really didn’t, because he was “trying to keep the criminals out.”
Clearly, Chief Blair has a lot to answer for. But it was the Liberals who set this mess in motion, and declined to put an end to it when they had ample chance.
First, the government failed to announce its new law. A simple press release could have explained what the regulation, which is worded in such a way that even police claim to have been confused by it, did and didn’t cover. Instead, the province buried it on a government website, such that nobody heard about it until an arrest was made.
Worse, the Liberals made no effort over the weekend to set the record straight, even though virtually every media outlet was reporting that people merely passing by the fence could find themselves in deep trouble. Mr. McGuinty could have stepped forward and reassured the public that the liberties of anyone not trying to enter the security zone were intact. Instead, he offered only “a lot of confidence in Chief Blair” and “very strong support of this time-limited extraordinary measure,” which reinforced the impression that the latter included the zone’s surrounding area.
Now, the Liberals are ducking any responsibility for the fact that they effectively (if inadvertently) gave police powers they were never intended to have. “The language of the regulation is very clear,” a spokesperson said, even as other senior Liberals acknowledged that they themselves were confused by it. Meanwhile, the Premier is nowhere to be seen, having not talked to reporters yet this week.
Behind the Liberals’ nonchalance about the whole affair lies what seems to be a wild overreaction to behaviour of the previous government.
Mike Harris’s Conservatives were accused of helping to overheat the standoff with aboriginals in Ipperwash Provincial Park, at which unarmed protester Dudley George was killed by the Ontario Provincial Police. So the Liberals came to office vowing never to interfere with police tactics – a policy they’ve maintained with religious conviction ever since.
It’s raised eyebrows before, particularly when the government seemed indifferent to the controversial way the OPP handled another standoff with natives in Caledonia.
But it’s now been taken to new and absurd extremes.
Nobody else will be arrested under this month’s botched regulation. But the message to police is clear: The current government couldn't care less how they do their jobs, even when they’re doing them wrong - and wrongly applying that government's decisions in the process.
McGuinty washes his hands of police mistreatment allegations
Ontario Liberals prepared to give police carte blanche
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Jun. 29, 2010 10:29PM EDT Last updated on Wednesday, Jun. 30, 2010 10:03AM EDT
It’s even worse than it originally appeared.
Not only did Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals place limits on civil liberties without telling anyone – but they also then washed their hands as police misrepresented and misused their new powers.
It’s a glaring abdication of responsibility, reflective of a government overly content to give police carte blanche even in the most volatile situations.
In this instance that free rein seems to have been abused, not least by Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair.
For several days, most everyone was under the impression that the province – through a temporary regulation affecting the Public Works Protection Act – had very quietly given police the power to conduct searches and demand identification up to five metres outside the security fence erected for last weekend’s G20 summit. They were under that impression because police acted as though it was the case.
The legislation was cited in last Thursday’s arrests of at least two activists, neither of whom seems to have tried to enter the zone. There is video evidence of officers citing the five-metre rule as they demanded that one of those activists, a rather harmless-looking, megaphone-wielding member of a group calling itself “the Love Police,” stop filming video well outside the fence.
Chief Blair, who requested the regulation in the first place, now claims that he only realized last Friday that the “five metres” refers to an area inside the fence, at which point he told his officers to stop invoking it. But he seemingly implied to a reporter Tuesday that he was willing to allow the public to continue to think through the weekend that police powers existed where they really didn’t, because he was “trying to keep the criminals out.”
Clearly, Chief Blair has a lot to answer for. But it was the Liberals who set this mess in motion, and declined to put an end to it when they had ample chance.
First, the government failed to announce its new law. A simple press release could have explained what the regulation, which is worded in such a way that even police claim to have been confused by it, did and didn’t cover. Instead, the province buried it on a government website, such that nobody heard about it until an arrest was made.
Worse, the Liberals made no effort over the weekend to set the record straight, even though virtually every media outlet was reporting that people merely passing by the fence could find themselves in deep trouble. Mr. McGuinty could have stepped forward and reassured the public that the liberties of anyone not trying to enter the security zone were intact. Instead, he offered only “a lot of confidence in Chief Blair” and “very strong support of this time-limited extraordinary measure,” which reinforced the impression that the latter included the zone’s surrounding area.
Now, the Liberals are ducking any responsibility for the fact that they effectively (if inadvertently) gave police powers they were never intended to have. “The language of the regulation is very clear,” a spokesperson said, even as other senior Liberals acknowledged that they themselves were confused by it. Meanwhile, the Premier is nowhere to be seen, having not talked to reporters yet this week.
Behind the Liberals’ nonchalance about the whole affair lies what seems to be a wild overreaction to behaviour of the previous government.
Mike Harris’s Conservatives were accused of helping to overheat the standoff with aboriginals in Ipperwash Provincial Park, at which unarmed protester Dudley George was killed by the Ontario Provincial Police. So the Liberals came to office vowing never to interfere with police tactics – a policy they’ve maintained with religious conviction ever since.
It’s raised eyebrows before, particularly when the government seemed indifferent to the controversial way the OPP handled another standoff with natives in Caledonia.
But it’s now been taken to new and absurd extremes.
Nobody else will be arrested under this month’s botched regulation. But the message to police is clear: The current government couldn't care less how they do their jobs, even when they’re doing them wrong - and wrongly applying that government's decisions in the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
