Newsstand: November 23, 2009
The Making of a Medley
The Daily Photoist: November 23, 2009
Televisualist: A Kinder, Gentler Televisualist
Transit City and Transit Cities
The protest by Toronto's Tamil community in front of the U.S. consulate on University Avenue continued last night and throughout today, with the street remaining closed between Dundas Street West and Queen Street West. And although heavy rain had thinned the crowd yesterday morning to only a hundred or so protesters, the Toronto Star reports that their numbers had swelled back up to a thousand by noon today.
While a Toronto Police Service news release early this morning described the ongoing demonstration as "peaceful"—as it appears in the above photos from last night—both the Toronto Sun and CityNews reported on what they termed "scuffles" yesterday between protesters and police. The outlets provided differing accounts of what sparked the incident. According to the Sun, several demonstrators were injured after officers attempted to re-clear the southbound lane of University Avenue. The account from CityNews holds an added layer of internal drama, claiming that police "moved in in great numbers" after confrontations began within a group of Tamils.
This morning's Toronto Police Service news release made no mention of altercations—either among protesters or between Tamils and police. However, some demonstrators were vocal in their denunciation of officers. One protester named Luxmy told CityNews, "This is not democracy in this country ... And a mad police touches me—it's illegal!" Meanwhile, Prasath Rajendram told the Sun his account of the police service's attempt to relocate demonstrators to the east side of University Avenue: "They wanted us to move back and onto the sidewalk. We've done that many times and we never get any respect from the government. We said, 'No, this is a free country.' And that's when they hit him [his friend] on the head [with a baton]."
Despite these tensions, the Tamil community seems set to keep up its vigil for an end to the conflict in Sri Lanka, with police ready to let them continue their protest—so long as the relative calm continues.
Photos by Nick Kozak/Torontoist.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I call "riot" in the next 36 hours.
Started mostly by Bay St execs who have been forced to find alternate transport for their Audis out of the downtown core.
Was there around 2am last night, stopping by on my way home from where I'd spent the latter part of my evening. I was amazed that the protesters were going strong at that hour, out in the middle of the night for their cause, and that entire families turned out. I saw a number of children up and out way past their bedtimes. I have no idea how many protesters were out but it was possibly in the hundreds. The sense of community was tangible. In the 15 minutes I was there food arrived for the protesters. Blankets were strewn on the road and sidewalks. It was peaceful, or as peaceful as it gets when people are shouting protest slogans into a microphone. I almost want to call the atmosphere "convivial" but that sounds wrong because the group wasn't there for a good time, they were there for a cause related to deaths. I'm sure they'd rather be at home in bed with nothing to protest. I was impressed.
I spoke to a couple of protesters. Regarding the protest itself, I was told that Ottawa had a similar protest that last 18 days. Regarding children being out, I was told, "How can they not come?" along with statements about their families back home being killed. They agreed that the community rallies together.
For days I've been skimming the related news in my news reader and barely paying attention to the radio news. It was abstract. To see it though is an amazing thing. I know that people are pissed off about two blocks of University being closed off (I watched the video on the CityNews website this morning) but 15 minutes in the middle of it, in the middle of the night, gives me perspective on their cause. I believe.
While I commend their spirit and willingness to demonstrate, I'm not exactly sure what they want to accomplish beyond what they have already (i.e. media reporting on the problems in Sri Lanka). It's not like th egov't is going to send troops to Sri Lanka. Plus, they were blocking emergency vehicles yesterday, a sure way to erode any sympathy one might have for their cause.
(And that last quote from the guy who didn't want to get off the road and onto the sidewalk pisses me off. Clearly they need to re-read what 'free country' really means. Or 'terrorist', for that matter.)
When do people become terrorists for protesting?
Not all Tamils agree with the LTTE's actions. There are thousands of civilians dying or wounded; many are now in internment camps which many in the UK media are even calling concentration camps (Boer style). Even U.N local staff and clergy (christian and hindu) are being held in these camps.
There are a lot of things Canada can do: 1) Economic Sanctions
2) Pushing the U.S. to block the IMF loan to Sri Lanka
3) Pushing for journalists/aid organizations to be let in
4) Dropping air relief
These are only some of the measures and Canada can work on some of these in partnership with the EU and the U.S. No one is asking Canada to send an army.
Somehow this doesn't sound like too much to ask for.
Democracy doesn't mean the absence of laws or the enforcement thereof.
Hear, hear.
So they don't think we have a democracy? We're democratic enough to let them disrupt our city when we have nothing to do with what's going on in their homeland. Funny how newcomers are so well-versed in the liberties and rights they feel they should be entitled to, yet so willing to close down roads with a protest that intrudes on the freedoms of a lot of people who aren't connected to their argument.
There is no such thing as the freedom to use University Ave.
I don't think freedom means what you think it means.
Also, they don't *feel* entitled, they *are* entitled. There's no seniority privilege when it comes to political protest.
"There is no such thing as the freedom to use University Ave."
There isn't? I guess you are not familiar with the concept of negative freedoms. I'm free to do anything that I am not specifically prohibited to do. That would appear to include using University Avenue.
On point: I don't care about the traffic disruption. I'm rather more concerned about the leap that is being made that, since protesters are apparently committed to their cause, the cause itself must be pious. That is odd reasoning, whatever your take.
Fellow citizens are not "restricting your freedom" if they're inadvertently preventing you from doing something just because it isn't illegal.
For example, there is no law saying you can't buy flour. So by your argument, you have the "right to freedom" to buy flour. But if every grocery store in Canada stops stocking flour, they aren't intruding on your freedom to buy flour. That's just not how it works. Free doesn't mean "I can always access this". It's not free the way a parking spot is free if a car isn't in it, or a timeslot for an appointment is free if no one has booked it, or the way University Ave is free if nothing is obstructing it. That's not what free, in the sense of freedom, means. You're conflating freedom with availability.
Free means "I can't be punished for accessing this" or "The government will grant the capacity for this to take place if it's listed in the Charter as a freedom (i.e, freedom of the press, the right to legal counsel, etc)."
And there is no freedom in the Charter for driving on University Ave.
That's why you can't sue the government for closing down a highway due to construction on the grounds that they're intruding on your negative freedom to drive.
Lastly, and more critically, it's fine to say "what about my negative liberty!" but there's nothing in the Charter that says "you can and will be able to do anything, unimpeded, if it isn't specifically illegal". There's nothing that even says "negative freedom", period. Negative freedom is a philosophical concept. It's not legal writ. It's not a constitutional right. You aren't legally entitled to it.
Also, even the philosophers behind negative liberty/freedom/rights (and their critics) never said that anything goes as long as it's not specifically illegal. Even original theorists like Hobbes and Locke, who wrote in very general terms, acknowledged that negotiation and limitations on negative freedoms would be both necessary and inevitable. And more contemporary theorists specify that negative and positive freedoms aren't just "anything". They entail specific freedoms. For example, your negative freedoms include freedom from slavery, freedom of speech, fair trials, etc. Your positive freedoms include things like public education, the right to legal counsel, blah blah blah. University Avenue has nothing to do with it.
You have to admit that you're stretching here.
Sorry, to Torontoist in general, if this is a double post. Comments wonky for me.
"Fellow citizens are not "restricting your freedom" if they're inadvertently preventing you from doing something just because it isn't illegal."
I don't understand this sentence. Also, I think we have different understandings of what "inadvertent" means.
You seem to be advancing a peculiar argument that the full panoply of rights and freedoms enjoyed by citizens in Canada are expressd in the Charter, in which case you will agree with me that freedom was invented in 1982. You seem also to embrace the statist assumption that government delegates freedoms to individual (instead of the liberal construction that individuals collectively delegate authority to governments, and it is that delegation which makes encroachments on individual freedoms legislated and enforced by governments legitimate). This seems to be the daylight between your statement and mine.
My point was a small one in retort to yours - I am free to use Uni Avenue and the protesters are free to obstruct same, subject to compliance with law. As the protesters were cleared by police and 15 were arrested, it appears that the protest was non-compliant.
(Your availability argument is a red herring - clearly the obstruction is not that the street is unavailable, it is whether, as set out above, the obstruction is itself legal. Closing the road for repairs is compliant with law and doesn't encroach on my freedoms for the same reason).
As a further aside, you don't really understand the concept of negative freedom, both as a philosophical concept and a source of law. I would point to the fundamental freedoms section of the Charter, but that would just reinforce your odd idea that the Charter is relevant to this discussion at all.
As I stated - I don't really care about the obstruction. I just thought your comment on freedom was a peculiar one.
I can condense it: your application of the concept of "negative freedom" isn't based on much except your own opinion, but you seem to feel entitled to it as though it actually carries some legal weight. It carries philosophical weight, but philosophical weight can't move you much in traffic.
Yes, you are "free" to use University Ave and the protesters are "free" to use it for their own purposes. We're on the same page there.
But you aren't intruding on their freedom to protest by driving on University Ave, and they aren't intruding on your freedom to drive on University Ave by protesting. The difference between us, I suppose, is that you think you can apply "intrusion of freedom" onto the sort of freedom that lets you drive on a particular road, and I think applying "intrusion of freedom" like that is a huge stretch. They're definitely intruding on the road's availability.
I don't think being "free" to do something is the same as having a constitutional freedom to do it. They can be mutually inclusive, but not always, and I'd hang your driving into "not always".
I am utterly astounded that you think the concept of negative freedom has no legal weight. I can't begin to parse that.
Yes, yes, we both find each other's opinions astounding. If this were a sitcom we'd be giving each other a long, level stare and then making out passionately.
I think what's going over these folks heads is how profoundly the average Torontonian does not give a shit about what's happening in Sri Lanka. And the reason the government is ignoring the Tamils and this protest is that the gov't knows that Canadians don't give a shit and so they won't even dignify the Tamils protests with a comment. So it'll continue until these folks get tired of it and go home to the 905 and leave us 416-ers in peace....
Husband who works at the Courts on University and Edward says they're blocking the streetcar tracks on Dundas and mounted police have been called in.
And apparently still on-going confrontation...workers being told to avoid the intersection [i work beside the courts].
Is this how people educate themselves about an issue? Skim a couple news articles and then talk to a tendentious protester? This is the most naive comment I have read on this site (that is some achievement).
yo' mama is some achievement
This was meant to be a reply to comment (2).
The TPS's latest release sez: "University Avenue will remain closed between Dundas Street West and Queen Street West, through the evening rush hour on Wednesday, April 29, 2009, and the morning rush hour on Thursday, April 29, 2009. Police suggest that the public consider alternate routes."
Maybe it'll continue until people give a shit, "rugby_lad."
I think he's right though - most people don't care except to be annoyed at the intrusion into their lives. Comments on websites, and overheard comments from people who work down here, seem to indicate no sympathy.
Whatever this protest serves to do, whether or not you agree with it or the means or ends it aims at, it has at least been enormously successful at getting attention to—if not support for—the issue.
Agreed.
Unfortunately I also agree with Nerfgun, who wrote "While I commend their spirit and willingness to demonstrate, I'm not exactly sure what they want to accomplish beyond what they have already (i.e. media reporting on the problems in Sri Lanka). It's not like the gov't is going to send troops to Sri Lanka."
Sadly, there appears to be two kids of people: Those who sympathize with others, those who only care about their own inconvenience. Maybe people should ask themselves whether they'd rather be compassionate or selfish?
(And I do mean "maybe". I don't know.)
The Tamils should be congratulated for effectively turning Canadians off their "cause".
And when I say "cause", I find their lack of acknowledgment of the Tamil Tigers being a terrorist organization. They see them as being freedom fighters (who also have an airforce...go freedom!!).
Even though innocents are being killed in Sri Lanka and I sincerely hope the Tamils will be treated as equal citizens and partners is Sri Lanka, I do not support the spirit of Toronto's Tamil community's protests.
And please...block traffic and ambulances and then say the police are treating you unfairly...talk about hypocrites. if you want respect in Canada, treat Canada, Canadians and Canadian laws with respect - especially when you have the freedom to protest a political issue.
They are turning you off of their cause, not me or people who care about what's really going on in the world outside of Canada, or who are only interested in bullshit like Canadian Idol.
I guess you've never heard the saying 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'. And as for attacking with planes-maybe the Sinhalese should stop using F-16's and helicopter gunships to rain destruction down on combatants and civilians-then maybe the LTTE wouldn't be having to use planes of their own. It's only fair, and sounds somewhat similar to the North Vietnamese using MIG 17's to stop the USAF from bombing them.
How much of the same happens at the Santa Claus parade, or any other event? You don't bitch about that, but you bitch about this. Please. As I said, at least they're concerned about something important-not the trivial bullshit that we all are usually concerned with.
"I guess you've never heard the saying 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
I've never heard it from anyone who is anything more than an aplogist for human rights abuses.
You've got to admit that's quite an ad hominem.
"Huh. I've never heard that from someone who isn't A TOTAL IDIOT and COMPLETELY EVIL you PIECE OF CRAP."
Not exactly. The phrase is most often marshalled to justify violent attacks on non-state targets. I've come to dislike it for that reason.
"Omg terrorists!" is a phrase that's marshaled for a lot of stupid reasons too.
I think there are plenty of incisive critiques to be made of the LTTE, but I don't think "TERRORISTS TERRORISTS THESE PEOPLE ARE TERRORISTS" is one of them. They've got their "freedom fighters" with an airforce, as Atomeyes pointed out, and the US has its "liberators" with tanks. (Note to RealityCheck, if you're reading this - no, honey, I'm not saying US = Tamil Tigers.) Language is an exploitable thing - whether you're using "freedom fighters" or "terrorists", you're not really demonstrating anything except your allegiance.
I'm ignoring Jesse due to severe point misplacement (also, advanced straw man creation and general pomposity in equating the phrase "informed opinion" with anything he chooses to believe), but I will be more patient with you: I don't particularly like the terrorist label either, and agree that it is as equally loaded as "freedom fighter". My point was/is that the phrase quoted is silly because it suggests the act (violence on non-state targets) is justifiable depending on the intentions of the party perpetrating the violence (given that the label chosen always reflects the speakers approval or disapproval of those intentions). By definition characterizing the violent acts of some as necessary to secure their freedom apologizes for that violence. This should not be so hard to understand.
Than you haven't done enough reading. Why don't you do some research. It's funny how a few terrorists can kill 10 and they are branded as evil and something to be crushed, but "governments" can kill 60 000 of their own people or in some cases (i.e. Stalinist Russia...20 million) and they manage to escape the terror label.
In this case, yes, the tamil tigers have killed people. That's wrong. They should face war crimes trials.
What's ridiculous is that the Sri Lankan government has killed tens of thousands more including journalists, staff from international aid organizations,and human rights activists (in numbers that far outdo casualties inflicted by the LTTE). The government has relentlessly and deliberately bombed schools and countless hospitals.
"Sri Lanka's government is one of the world's worst perpetrators of enforced disappearances, US-based pressure group Human Rights Watch (HRW) says."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7280050.stm
X the X, I guess these aren't human rights abuses according to your philosophical perspective.
I don't know why this was addressed to me, you are clearly engaging in an argument with a voice in your head.
Yes, it was the voice in my head that said:
"I guess you've never heard the saying 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
I've never heard it from anyone who is anything more than an aplogist for human rights abuses."
So it wasn't you who wrote that?
If you did a little more reading you would know that the world is far more nuanced than that.
Black and white perspectives never cut it (i.e. NEVER heard it from ANYONE who is ANYTHING more than an apologist...).
The response of one protester:
"Both the Canadian media and the blogosphere are teeming with articles and comments from those who seem inclined to use Tamil Canadians as an example of the failure of Canada’s multicultural experiment. Much of this has come in response to the protests in Ottawa and Toronto. Tamil Canadians have been accused of everything from being terrorists to thoughtlessly clogging up roadways in these two cities."
See the below link for more.
http://voicesinexile.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/opinion-canada-is-our-home-too-%E2%80%94-photos-reactions-from-the-recent-protests-part-ii/
Also see this photo essay video on the Toronto protests: http://voicesinexile.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/photo-essay-the-war-comes-home-torontos-tamils-reach-out/
I was walking by this mess this afternoon and it was the first I'd heard or seen of it. I guess I missed the news last night. Anyhow, I agree with most other posts above, it's bullshit that this is allowed to go on. I can almost understand one day, but three? Not to mention blocking emergency vehicles. Congratulations, you've just lost anyone that was remotely close to being on your side of the issue.
What I found most infuriating, aside from the pointless mass protesting of any issue at all, was that the crowds were shouting for Obama to help them. Obama?! You've got the wrong country you fucking morons. Your protest has about as much credibility as Beatlemania.
My advice to the protesters is to pack it in and take a public relations course. All they've accomplished by this idiocy is to call attention to the fact that the Tamil Tigers are a terrorist organization, which I didn't know before they clogged up University Ave.
And, of course, this is all aside from the fact that no one gives a shit. As bad as this sounds, if you care that much take your protest to the source, University Ave didn't do anything to you.
The Obama chanting might seem a bit weird, but they are protesting right in front of the American embassy.
Last night, more toward Queen St., they were chanting about Canadian politicians.
Check out this photo: http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/29/wanted_clinton_for_aiding_terrorism
According to the Sri Lankan Sinhalese majority and its government, Clinton and Eric Solheim are now terrorists to as was Allan Rock (who was called a "white tiger"). That should give you some idea as to how the word terrorism is tossed around in Sri Lanka.
AJB, you have about as much credibility as Bush the II.
Why don't you do your research before you call people "fucking morons".
Those protesters were protesting in front of the U.S embassy hence the cries of Obama. Moreover, the U.S. has a lot of control over an IMF loan to Sri Lanka which is has already delayed and which the protesters are hoping will be either refused or tied to conditions on human rights, justice for journalists, a ceasefire, freedom of movement for displaced civilians who have now been penned into boer-style concentration camps among other things.
I'm glad to see all the under the carpet racism in Canada come out into the open now. I'm sure if they were white people wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them as "fucking morons" who have no idea why they're protesting in front of the U.S. embassy. They evidently have a better handle on the issues than you do. Why don't you go "fucking" talk to them and do some real reading on the issues before you spout off.
And yes, let's call them all terrorists cause you know we can smear everyone with the same brush. Btw, Nelson Mandela wasn't taken off the U.S. terror list until LAST summer (that is 2008). Iceland was also called terrorist by the British. If you were a little bit more nuanced in your understanding of international politics you would know that the terrorism label is often just rhetoric and often used to silence.
where's the proof that emergency vehicles were blocked? From what I've heard, there was another lane opened up for them.
"I'm here in Ottawa and I heard that the Tamil demonstrations according to the Ottawa Police were some of the most orderly and tidiest of demonstrations on Parliament Hill and I think should be commended, as one of the panelists mentioned, for engaging. Their issues may be different from other peoples, but their engaging peacefully and democratically."
- Rudyard Griffiths
(Author of Who We Are - http://www.theglobeandmail.com
/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090312.wbkrudyard14/BNStory/globebooks/home)
40:45 Minute mark:
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=7&bpn=779495&ts=2009-04-23+20%3A00%3A35.0
It's hard to take this protest seriously when the participants won't even wear Guy Fawkes masks.
FYI, a statement from police chief Bill Blair on the protests:
"We’ve managed to keep public transit moving quite effectively on Queen and Dundas without impedement. There is some impact on the traffic flow on University Avenue, but we’ve worked to make sure that all of the access to the hospitals is being maintained. The public’s ability to walk down the street is being maintained. The actual timetable we’re dealing with will be determined by events well beyond our control. It’s in response to international events.
People say, ‘Aren’t they breaking the law because they don’t have a permit?’ You can’t get a permit to protest.
We deal with dozens of protests in this city every week and we’ve had lots of them in front of the consulate and we’re quite familiar with managing protests there. You might recall that over a decade ago, there was a NATO action that took place in the Balkans, in Serbia, and we had demonstrations that went on for 90 consecutive days. We managed it then and we’ll manage it now."
Read the rest here: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2009/04/29/verbatim-chief-bill-blair-defends-police-response-to-tamil-protest.aspx
For those of you who seem to think the protesters were breaking laws....do your research again before you spout off. Unless you think you know better than the police chief.
Signing off from this blog; hope people take the time read the links I posted and do some reading on this issue.
Having an opinion is one thing; having an informed opinion is another, and unfortunately, I haven't seen that in the comments sections to many articles on this issue.
I would encourage people to not take anything at face value and dig a bit on their own.
Thanks for participating. Your failure to provide anything more than what amounts to "take what the Tamils are saying at face value" was absolutely stimulating.
Jesse, aka M.I.A. (daughter of a senior Tiger leader and fiance of a Bronfmann, as well as a pop star), thanks for your ignorant comments in aid of an ongoing crime against humanity.
All fo the protesters should be prosecuted for their actions in aid of the LTTE. The Tigers are completely illegitimate and their actions have only served to piss off Canadians. I wish only utmost failure on the, as I do on ETA, all Salafists, Sendor Luminoso, FARC, Red Brigades, IRA, and every other terrorist group in the world. Time for real Geneva Conventions to come back - summary execution of all guerillas!
Summary execution isn't the answer and I wish you had left that off your post, but if the information about Jesse is correct, then the lack of disclosure regarding her identity poisons her arguments even further.
To both RealityCheck and Matt1256,
First of all MIA is not the daughter of a senior Tiger leader; check your facts.
And how interesting, Matt, someone's identity can poison their argument? Are you saying you don't judge someone by the quality of their arguments, but by who they are? As much as I'd love to be MIA, I am not so fortunate as to be able to claim her identity.
And if anyone was reading my comments, I have clearly stated:"In this case, yes, the tamil tigers have killed people. That's wrong. They should face war crimes trials."
Interesting, how anything critical of the Sri Lankan government even on this blog becomes "ignorant". I guess posting links to the BBC and the police chief's comments amounts to ignorance. If that's ignorance, then I'll happily accept that label.
Most on this blog are condemning the protesters and all Tamils without trying to understand them. My posts were meant to help shed some light into their perspective since almost no one else was doing so.
But don't let me stop you from contributing your own so well researched, nuanced, and "stimulating" arguments to the "dialogue".
I've never been so proud to be Canadian.
How the fuck do you know that she's M.I.A., moron? Again, why don't you do your own thinking instead of being a big media baby being fed the same pablum every day?
I am disgusted with the protesters' actions. They had no legal right to shut down the Gardiner Expressway.
I am directing this comment towards the protesters:
Deal with your own problems. Do not involve Canada in your disputes with Sri Lanka. What makes you think other countries such as Canada have a responsibility to assist you with your problems? Stop relying on Canada to intervene on your behalf. We're not a cow you can milk for all its worth. If you want to fight the cause, great, then take a flight to Sri Lanka and deal with your own issues. We have no interest in getting involved. How dare you bring your problems to our backyard and disrupt the lives of law abiding Canadian citizens. You were given the privilege of entering this country, don't abuse it by protesting in an unlawful manner. Follow this advice: check your problems at the border, we don't need them. Whoever organized this protest should be fined & imprisoned. A clear message needs to be sent to the protesters that we do not accept this type of behaviour. There is pain/suffering throughout many regions across the globe. We're not about to help every country in need of assistance. Especially from tamil tiger flag bearing 'freedom fighters'. Do you really think Canada wants to associate itself with your cause? You have lost any form of respect from Canadian citizens by taking aggressive protesting actions. In case you forgot, this is Canada...NOT Sri Lanka. Get your assess off our highway.