I am by no means a defender of capitalism; nor am I a fan of the police – but it seems to me the hysteria from the protesters, the rioters, and their supporters (I’m looking at you, GSU+UTSU) have taken this over-reaction business to a whole new level.
Facts:
- “Anarchists” using the black bloc tactic were hiding amongst the peaceful protestors making it difficult for the police to identify them individually [1]
- The black bloc rioters destroyed dozens of private properties and at least four police cruisers on Saturday evening [2] [3]
- The police had identified at least some of the vandals and promised to arrest them at a later time (i.e. a later protest) [4]
- The “peaceful protesters” did next to nothing to stop the “anarchists” from destroying all the property: by many accounts, those who weren’t cheering and applauding were idly standing and watching (bystander effect at work?) [5]
- The police admitted to arresting and detaining many innocent protestors, but also claimed it was a necessary evil to arresting those black bloc rioters who were blending into the crowd [6;ongoing]
The “Anarchists”
“They call themselves anarchists. I think that’s a generous opinion.” -Mayor David Miller
Most of the mass media reporters seem to agree on one thing about the black bloc anarchists: they were mostly ‘punks’ and kids who showed up for the explicit purpose of violence and vandalism. They had no particular cause, nor a particular issue, nor are they even an official ‘group’ of any constitution. These are idiots who get off on seeing chaos and destruction. They probably took Fight Club a little bit too seriously.
These are stupid, naive, and violent ‘thugs’ who don’t have enough to do with their time. For the most part, they are young societal outcasts hailing from the middle class who also happen to be misanthropes.
The “Peaceful” Protestors
So those anarchists with the black gear decided to blend into the crowds of protestors, then gradually hi-jacked the protests and started a riot. The protestors stood by and watched while the streets burned. Then they go on to complain that the police presence is too much and that we were turning into a Police State. The “Whose streets? Our Streets!” chant being used against the police seems a little self serving here when it is blatantly obvious to most residents of the city that the police were there to protect residents against the ever-present violent rioters.
Why is it that the protestors stood by and did nothing? Why is it that they kick and scream about police brutality, but make no mention of the window-smashing and cruiser-burning? This particular theory seems pretty appealing: the protestors seem to want some ruckus and fighting. It might just be useful to their cause. Then there are the conspiracy nuts who keep trying to tell us that the police were the ones who lit their car on fire.
Furthermore, it seems that many of the protestors actually knew who the people in the black were (pretty easy to spot with the big black army boots after they get rid of the clothes), and yet didn’t bother to report anything or confront anybody. They act all brave when yelling at the politicians, but somehow lose their guts when they see an anarchist? Give me a break.
For the large part, most of the protestors are not your average citizens / Toronto residents. Most of us decided to stay away from the city and the mobs of chanting people. Sure, many of them have pet issues that they care deeply about – possibly the environment, child poverty, world hunger, or wars – but the most important common thread between the groups are that the people are there for the purpose of causing a scene. That’s what protests (peaceful ones even) are for, of course.
Think of the people you know who went to the protests. Watch the news footage of the protestors. Listen to the interviews of the people on the streets. From what I gather, most of these people are the ’shit-disturbers’ of society. You know the kind – the ones who like to yell and scream and incite chants for their cause du jour; the kind of people who like to scream and yell at the most seemingly inappropriate times when you just want to, say, go to sleep, or just try to leave work for home (sadly in that particular case, some of us regular folk had to foot their legal bill)!
All this, and we still don’t really know what the protestors were arguing for. Nobody seems interested in putting out a logical argument pertaining to the matter that they are trying to push. Most are only interested in catchy chants, it seems.
The Indignant
Naturally, when some of them got arrested for refusing to listen to police instructions (a common sense and street-smart thing to do in almost all circumstances), they cried foul and started claiming abuses of civil liberties. Well, what about my civil liberties as a resident of the city who doesn’t want to listen to your protests (especially when many of you are extraordinarily ill-informed and naive)? If I recall correctly from my Law & Morality course, our constitution and most constitutions of the “free world” are based on the premise that you have fundamental rights – provided that you do not interfere with other peoples’ rights.
So excuse me if you will for having no sympathy for you lot. If you want to get real change, go shape the public policy debate by helping a political campaign or running for office. Most of the G20 leaders were democratically elected, after all. Yelling and banging and creating the justification for the multi-million dollar security bill certainly doesn’t bring me to your side of the fence.
The Cops
This brings us to the polarizing topic of the Cops. A cursory glance at the twitter feeds and the headlines from yesterday reveal that the cops were both too brutal and too reserved.
On one side, we’ve got people complaining that the cops were nowhere to be found when the rioters started smashing windows and burning cars; on the other, we’ve got people complaining that the police were too brutal when they managed to stop several potential riots involving the black bloc anarchists.
Oh sorry, I got that wrong: those are the same people complaining about both things. You can’t have it both ways!
Yes, the protestors were arrested and detained, and many of them were of the non-riot type… but as I said above – I’ve got no sympathies for those who willingly put themselves into the police ‘trap’ – how hard is it to not run into riot police? I, for one, am glad that the crazies were stopped before they could break anything else.
It is painfully obvious that the police were being provoked and baited – and while the opposite is also true, the protestors and their indignant supporters seem to get all one-sided in their account of events. Videos are even purposely cut short to show only out-of-context actions by the police. Shame on you guys for manipulating the media – thought you guys were all above that?
So there were a few bad apples amongst the police. There were also a few bad apples in the protests. Funny how things balance, no?
Get the G20 out of my city
Regardless, the only take-home message is this: why the hell were the summits hosted in the downtown core of the busiest city in the country? If they wanted resorts, Canada is full of country-side lakes and rivers. If they wanted big halls, we’ve got dozens of huge spaces in the suburbs. Heck, what about that thing, with the Nations that are United and have this internationally independent building that was built for the purpose of meetings? There doesn’t seem to be any great reason to cause a billion to be spent. (Oh, and what’s wrong with Skype?)
Maybe Stephen Harper just wanted Canada to be on the news more… at the cost of his (least) favourite Canadian city, Toronto. Payback for not voting for the Conservatives, eh?
Comments (2)
I’m going to do that annoying internet thing where rather than construct a cohesive argument I’ll just respond to you point by point. Sorry.
““Anarchists” using the black bloc tactic were hiding amongst the peaceful protestors making it difficult for the police to identify them individually [1]”
Nothing in the cited article actually suggests this. In fact, another Star article explicitly states:
“The crowd, dressed in their black uniforms, moves as a blob”
(http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/829194–behind-the-black-bloc-mob?bn=1)
Incidentally, also in this article an “anarchist” claims:
“the tactic makes a division among protesters in the eyes of the police, inherently protecting the “good protesters.””
Not that this matters (in fact, few of your “facts” have any significance to your editorial). But why begin by being so disingenuous?
“Most of the mass media reporters seem to agree on one thing about the black bloc anarchists…[insert absurd caricature here]”
I keep hearing this narrative repeated. Without any compelling source, naturally. Where are the interviews with rioters indicating this? Where are any interviews with them whatsoever? From the previously linked Star article:
“Expressed through an assortment of chants, the group’s causes are many: They’re anti-capitalist, anti-police, anti-colonial. While the labour members marched to have their voices heard, the anarchists are resolute that world leaders aren’t listening and don’t care. Any change has to come at their own hands.
For the most part, their targets are specific and symbolic: As the crowd tore across Queen St., they hammered police cruisers, attacked banks and other corporate companies. Yet they left a record store, a local tavern and an independent hardware shop untouched.”
Hey, look! A media report giving an (admittedly non-specific) account of the rioters’ politics, and even suggesting that their actions might have clearly reflected them! Yes Virginia, I’m surprised too.
“…the kind of people who like to scream and yell at the most seemingly inappropriate times when you just want to, say, go to sleep, or just try to leave work for home…what about my civil liberties as a resident of the city who doesn’t want to listen to your protests?”
First of all, nowhere in the world is freedom from noise pollution (free speech) recognized as a fundamental civil liberty – unlike, say, the right to free protest. Second of all – and I don’t want to get too personal here – this attitude smacks of entitled upper-middle class whining. “Oh no! My favorite Starbucks will need a new windowpane! THOSE MONSTERS.” Meanwhile, our glorious leaders just spent a billion of our dollars so they could hobnob in ritzy hotels and lounge by fake lakes, eating lobster and prosciutto wrapped melon and bison tenderloin and discussing how to make the outrageously rich and powerful even richer and more powerful – when, of course, we don’t have enough money for health care or sustainable energy in this country and half the world lives on less than $2.50 a day. It;s true that the protesters think their causes are more important than your (or my) first-world creature comforts for two whole days. That’s a value judgement. I don’t think it’s the wrong one.
“All this, and we still don’t really know what the protestors were arguing for. Nobody seems interested in putting out a logical argument pertaining to the matter that they are trying to push.”
Your ignorance isn’t really their fault. The fault of the mass media, maybe. But you could have picked up a Now Magazine this week, which had a protest schedule, clearly delineating who was protesting what and where. For instance.
“If you want to get real change, go shape the public policy debate by helping a political campaign or running for office.”
And you accuse the protesters of being ill-informed and naive.
“On one side, we’ve got people complaining that the cops were nowhere to be found when the rioters started smashing windows and burning cars; on the other, we’ve got people complaining that the police were too brutal when they managed to stop several potential riots involving the black bloc anarchists.
Oh sorry, I got that wrong: those are the same people complaining about both things. You can’t have it both ways!”
Was there bloc riot going down on The Esplanade Saturday night? No one who was there says anything of the sort (except maybe the police, but then *they would*, wouldn’t they?). But clearly the reporter for The Guardian who the police sucker-punched and beaten to the ground was a dangerous anarchist (this was witnessed and reported by none other than Steve Paikin @spaikin).
Hint: the police behaviour changed radically over the course of the summit. Initially – when the rioters were actually causing damage – the police were totally ineffectual (for better or worse). Later on the police were brutalizing even the most peaceful of protesters. Asking for a measured police response at all times isn’t hypocritical or contradictory whatsoever.
“So there were a few bad apples amongst the police. There were also a few bad apples in the protests. Funny how things balance, no?”
And yet you come to the defense of the police but call the protesters “idiots”. Where were the other, “peaceful” police officers? Why weren’t they stopping the violent ones?
More crucially, police have way, way more power than a protester does. A bad apple police officer is far more dangerous than a bad apple protester, and because of that we need to be much less forgiving of their indiscretions.
Anyways, I agree with you on one thing – I want the G20 out of our city. But no need to stop there; get it off our planet.
As being someone who was physically there to witness the violence and protests as well as seeing it on TV, I have a couple of points to make.
1. The media is in the business of making a story. They need to sell their product and will gather the juiciest information that will increase viewership/readership of their press. Police vs protester images definitely sell much better than the statements of those denouncing the protests. Being personally amongst the crowd at some points, many people thought the protest was absolutely stupid and ineffectual. As much as the media effectively captured the view of the citizen, the police was also videotaping much of their activity as well and will likely have adequate justification for some of their actions.
2. Being amongst the crowd for a period of time, I noticed a few things. The amount of bystanders, many of which with cameras, who would fall into the “curious and naive” category were not actually protesting anything. They’re along for the ride because many of them, like myself, find it to be exciting. This is first time many of us has seen this form of civil unrest and many of our parents/grandparents moved to Canada just so we can get away from it. It can get much much worse than what has happened in Toronto.
Is a protest still a protest if 80% of the people there weren’t protesting? Sure you have a right to free protest, but if you’re surrounded by people who don’t have the same message as you then you are no longer an effective protesting group. The individuals become a crowd of a variable make up of purposes and easily, a mob. I got out when I saw the riot police come as I had no reason to be there other than shits and giggles. A smart protester or bystander would get out as well if they weren’t looking for police interaction. The police are there to do their job and if you’re part of a crowd that’s not uniformly there for the same purpose, you become part of the problem. If I was caught in that mess that happened on Sunday, the only person I would blame is myself for putting myself in that situation. Riot police doesn’t move that fast and the majority of those people had a chance to leave. To reiterate Kevin’s post, it’s pretty obvious when there are massive crowds around you and police on closing in.
3. The money justified itself simply because certain codes of conduct weren’t followed. Yes, that money could have gone to more meaningful things.