Today Fri Sat
It is forecast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on July 31, 2014
Chance of Rain
24°/17°
It is forecast to be Clear at 11:00 PM EDT on August 01, 2014
Clear
25°/18°
It is forecast to be Partly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on August 02, 2014
Partly Cloudy
25°/17°

46 Comments

news

Newsstand: June 28, 2010

matt_newsstand_bikelane.jpg
Illustration by Matt Daley/Torontoist.


Upheaval. Anger. Confusion. Vivid welts. American Apparels with actual shit on the walls. But surely we must weigh these costs against what was accomplished this weekend. So, what’s that? We bade farewell to some police cruisers, of course, and the G20 security forces got such a good workout that we might make this fun run an annual event, if not bimonthly.
And speaking of vigorous constitutionals, the first person arrested under the unannounced regulation that empowered police to conduct warrantless searches and interrogations of anyone within five metres of the G20 security fence intends to file a constitutional challenge. And we say bravo! Technically a regulation, the so-called “secret law” that was passed by provincial cabinet without debate in the legislature, at the “extraordinary request” of police chief Bill Blair, can be summarized as follows: papers or jail time, now.
And throughout all the mayhem, we wish we had the patience of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who gave an unusual interview this weekend amidst the festivities to discuss one of the G8 summit’s most important, and more neglected, decisions. Speaking of Stephen Harper’s maternal health initiative, Moon said that “it’s encouraging that the G8 committed five billion dollars for the next five years. I welcome it. But my (action plan) asks fifteen billion dollars immediately.” Toronto police, take note: that is what we call restraint.
And while we’re speaking of Stephen Harper, he really drove home the point that the state has advanced far beyond needing agents provocateurs to justify security measures that any honest observer would admit went beyond insane and bordered on obscene, particularly in light of all the good that might have been done had our government been willing to spend the money on something constructive.
Which brings us to the so-called “Black Bloc” tactics deployed to such devastating effect against incidental targets and crowds of innocent protesters. It’s unfortunate that one of the major coups of the summit and protests was scored by a group of balaclava’d dorks bent on causing collateral damage and nothing else.
Oh, and we finally got rid of that unsightly Eternal Flame of Hope. The new Plywood Blunt Pyramid of Authority looks much nicer.
There are precisely two genuinely silver linings. Least but not last: the nearly naked guy who balanced on the war monument on University Avenue survived his puzzling stunt, and looked kind of cool (and assuredly pretty dumb—but we say that with love) all the while. And secondly: the fact that the next summit, just five months from now, is happening almost as far from Toronto as is geographically possible. How much is that one going to cost? Seriously, is the G20 really some sort of low-level stimulus program?
That about rounds out summit news, and leaves us a little time to talk about Toronto’s latest export. If rumors and an anonymous NBA executive are to be trusted, Chris Bosh is headed to Chicago. The Texas-born power forward may be headed moving south soon. LeBron James could join him, too.
Man, that was a pile of good news! But for those of you who require a chaser, Torontoist is all too pleased to provide the Little Sedan That Could. Happy Monday, everyone!

Comments

  • http://undefined McKingford

    The Ontario Public Public Works Protection Act is most certainly a law, and not a regulation. The regulation that was surreptitiously passed simply defined the “public work” as the perimeter security fence. In short, the absurdly unconstitutional law has been on the books for some time. It is simply the proscribed area that was recently enacted.
    I generally have a great deal of respect for Chief Blair, who is probably about 1000X the police chief that Julian Fantino was (if Fantino was still chief right now, I’d guess that half of Toronto would still be ablaze right now). But it was very disappointing to hear him dissembling during his press conference, when asked about the absence of probable cause from the law. He stated, quite falsely, that the law has a probable cause element. But as anyone can plainly read (see s. 3), there is nothing in the act requiring reasonable grounds to require either that a person identify themselves, or be subject to (or have their vehicles subject to) search.
    http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p55_e.htm

  • http://undefined Colin

    It’s only unconstitutional in the eyes of twisted amateurs who get their legal opinions from Maude Barlow. Stop defending the terrorists who just tried to destroy our city. They are bad folks and deserve what they got.

  • http://undefined rek

    Email the mayor and your councillor and councillor Vaughan (Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina, where most of this happened) and let them know just how badly Blair screwed over the city.

  • http://undefined Colin

    The only people who screwed over our city are the Toronto Community Mobilization Network and other groups that stoked the fire and encouraged violence and destruction.
    Thankfully, these anti-democratic bullies didn’t get the job done. We’re still here. Canada is still a democracy. They didn’t overthrow a government or destroy our systems.
    I hope they rot in prison.

  • http://undefined rek

    You live in a fantasy land. Luckily there’s a cure.

  • http://undefined McKingford

    Sorry to pull rank, but I’m a lawyer. I gave the cite and the assignment – go find “reasonable and probable” grounds in the Act, and then come back to us. Until then, keep your head out of your Colin…

  • http://undefined friend68

    Go ahead and block me too, rek, as I agree that the police showed restraint that most aren’t capable of in the face of those who had no agenda but violence, destruction and confrontation.
    Citizens of Toronto as well as legitimate protesters were badly abused by this group who are more than happy to hide behind masks and destroy the work of others, then cling madly to the civil liberties provided to them by the same government and society they claim to want to tear down, complaining about how they are treated — as if they were a fraction as badly as they themselves treated the police, public property and private property.
    Perhaps even those protest groups who refused to denounce them in advance will do so now, see they they too are ignored in the face of the criminal acts of a few.
    Attacks on police are not just attacks on individuals, but also attacks on those who stand up to defend the society we cherish, one of the best and most free in the world. Look at those images of the officers in that car, before it was burned, standing by without reacting as they might have justified in doing, as the windows were smashed and their lives put at risk.
    I might faintly hope that complains about trees being removed in advance might fade with the image of masked criminals tearing up cobblestones from the street and landscaping to throw at police and glass.
    By all means, if believe that the burdens of the recession were unfairly borne, protest and speak loudly. If you think that the health of the environment is sacrificed for profit, protest and speak loudly. But if all you want is to confront, to yell curses and insults, to destroy and run when you get the chance in the mob, I at least have little patience and even less sympathy. Far better to put our efforts into protecting the lives and rights of those who deserve it.

  • http://undefined lunarworks

    While I don’t think the cops are bullies or bad guys, I think their performance ran the whole spectrum. They showed a bit too much restraint on Saturday, and then overcompensated on Sunday with the Queen/Spadina fiasco.

  • http://undefined mark.

    So, what was worse – the black bloc or the Toronto police? Smashed windows or trampled human and civil rights?

  • http://undefined McKingford

    So that’s the only choice is it? As long as the police are better than the black bloc, everything is A OK? Pretty low standards you’ve got there.
    How about this: what was worse – the thousands of people protesting legitimately, peacefully and respectfully, or the police?

  • http://undefined rek

    You think I’d filter someone for their opinion alone? Colin’s shown he has nothing to offer these discussions but violent vitriol and abuse.
    It’s far too easy to excuse anything and everything the police did by pointing at smashed windows and burnt cars. The vast majority of people in the streets and people arrested had nothing to do with any of that, and weren’t arrested in connection to those incidents. Attacks by police are not just attacks on individuals, but also attacks on the society we cherish, one of the best and most free in the world.

  • http://undefined rek

    I’d rather replace glass than have civil rights clawed back or take a baton to the face from someone who will get away with it because they’re dressed in riot gear.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    Uh, and not your MP and MPP? Why not, rek? Why are you thinking tactically like a police officer and not strategically like a planner?

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    Wow. You genuinely believe this is all about “the police”, don’t you? You don’t think that it was any more nuanced and any less black and white than that, do you?

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    That’s not necessarily an unreasonable assessment.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    No rek, Colin just sees things as extreme and black and white as you do, but from the far other end of the political universe. To some extent, these extremes are no less absurd from one another. The difference here is I know not to take Colin personally or seriously. I’m still trying to take you seriously, but it’s getting a little harder as we go along.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    What’s worse is having this childish, simpleton either-or pissing match. This is much worse than billy clubs and kevlar versus chunks of faecal-coated concrete and arrested development, because this pissing match is what will go on for a lot longer while more important matters at much higher levels of execution need to be put to public inquiry.

  • http://undefined rek

    Apparently being tactical gets the job done and everyone will forgive you, talking about how you did the best with a bad situation, et cetera.
    I’ve since emailed the Ontario Liberals regarding Dalton’s role.

  • http://undefined Colin

    There is plenty of probably cause in people who are hanging around a security zone where violent trouble has been promised. Protest organizations promised violence around the security zone, therefore there is ample reason for any rational person to suspect someone taking a keen interest in the fence to be a potential threat.
    We’re living in the real world, not your little fantasy realm where you and your thuggish bullies get to push around law-abiding citizens.
    Go back to collecting your Legal Aid chits.

  • http://undefined rek

    Did I somehow give you the impression I think the police are capable of “clawing back” civil rights? (Perhaps in some unmentioned police coup and junta?) Would it then follow that I must believe the police are the ones to grant civil rights? Shit, I can’t remember who I voted for in the last police election. Bill Blair is still mayor, right?
    Et cetera.

  • http://undefined Colin

    Censorship, great answer. It’s just like the tactics the protesters took this weekend. Shout down those you don’t agree with. If that doesn’t work torch their houses.
    Nice.

  • http://undefined Colin

    Those protesting respectfully and peacefully have no one but the Black Bloc group and those who encouraged violence to blame. It’s because of those bad apples and their actions that the security had to be so tight and police had to take the actions they did. So stop making excuses and trying to find ways to blame police.
    If the demonstrators were simply chanting, waving placards, and making speeches, none of this would have happened.

  • http://undefined McKingford

    Thank you Colin, for giving us all a laugh for showing how profoundly stupid you are, while at the same being utterly clueless as to how stupid you truly are.
    As I recall, you were the one who burst in here talking about “amateurs”. The point made was that the *law* fails to incorporate reasonable and probable grounds into its detention and search authorizations. And your response is to talk about “probably [sic] cause” (a legal standard not used in Canada) arising from a hypothetical factual situation, not the law itself.
    So thank you for showing, once again, that the stupid reactionary right cannot be parodied, it can only parody itself.
    Amateur.

  • http://undefined mark.

    I merely asked a rhetorical question

  • http://undefined bray

    Wow. You genuinely believe this is all about “the police”, don’t you?
    Who do you consider it to be about?

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    Who?
    Uh, the Group of 20 nation-state-members whose macroeconomic ends could use a little distraction from their far-reaching, multilateral agreements? Uh, Harper’s unilateral hosting decision to foist this on Toronto rather than opening voluntary bids for hosting this in a city which might have actually wanted the economic activity of a short, but high-visibility global event? Uh, the disempowered Torontonians who were screwed both in the short-term of this weekend and the long-term of years to come?
    Oh, gosh. I don’t know. I’d ask you to help me, but you’re also asking me to make sense of it for you. I don’t think it’s possible to do both at the same time.
    Here’s what I do know: the street skirmishes, as they’ve been since 1999 in Seattle, were predictable acts in a violent, grotesque theatre — a performance with a pre-determined, fait accompli climax and then a protracted denouement (which we’re just entering right now).
    Maybe it’s the political geographer in me, but none of this past month — the surveillance, the spaces of exclusion, the lock-down of local economic activity, the disempowered placement of citizens within that space — came as unexpected (in every sense of the word).
    I was (and remain) angry not so much at the highly distracting dog-and-pony show of our streets this weekend — whose play I’d seen before, and whose storyline I’ve never liked and never will — but the purpose of that show being used as a smokescreen to distract us from what really matters. Oh, and of using that tactic in my city — our city. Regrettably, we the citizens all fell for it again — just like we increasingly fell for it in Genoa, Québec, London, Pittsburgh, and all the other places since Seattle.
    With Seattle, it was a prototype script in rough draft form. We’ve had plenty of time to catch up since then. But peaceful protestors failed to do their history homework.
    All it took was looking back at past spectacles since 1999 to know what to watch out for: face-covered thugs out to break it for “The Corporate Man.” Upon the appearance of these hooded bastards and their first attempt at smashing windows and cars, this should have been the tip-off for peaceful protestors, outnumbering thugs, to take citizen-led action and keeping the peace through self-driven policing of those little pricks rather than give a highly-fortified law enforcement coalition the green light to justify their gear and presence.
    The best-case scenario for these spectacles is to give law enforcement nothing to do instead of having them brace and react using trained manoeuvres for a scripted, worst-case scenario. Giving law enforcement nothing to do undermines the power of distraction from central issues driving the agenda at these Group of 6 20 soirées. Giving law enforcement nothing to do puts this attention back on Harper for making the politically charged decision he did to dump this on Toronto. Giving law enforcement nothing to do keeps media and social/economic/environmental justice eyes on Group leaders and the far-reaching accords to which they agree. In turn, this puts the leaders on notice back home that their citizens are paying attention to their every move — not the sideshow unfolding on the streets of Toronto.
    How hard is this to comprehend?

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    Correction: at “Group of 6 20,” that was supposed to be a strike-through on 6. Strike-through tags, however, are not supported here.

  • http://undefined bray

    I’d ask you to help me, but you’re also asking me to make sense of it for you.
    Christ, I’m not asking you to make sense of anything for me but you. I’m sincerely wondering how someone can obviously consider themselves as occupying the sober middle ground while apparently thinking that the behaviour of the police was completely okay this weekend.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    I said that? For real? Where, may I ask?

  • http://undefined bray

    You’ve made twenty five comments on G20 related posts since Saturday. You’ve spent a lot of time talking about how much the Black Bloc sucks (gee, really? I was too dumb to figure that out on my own and somehow have managed to miss every single media outlet in Toronto saying basically nothing else) and now you’ve even managed to criticize all the other protesters for not managing to…uh…I dunno, citizen’s arrest a group of violent thugs who the police feel the need to wear riot gear in order to deal with.
    Meanwhile, when the subject is the police, every single comment but one has been arguing with people who are criticizing them. It’s all, “Hey, they’re people too, man. They just want to get home to their families.” Someone even offered you the perfect opportunity for some form of criticism by saying that the police “overcompensated on Sunday”, probably the weakest possible criticism one could make (even ignoring the fact that on Saturday that notorious anarchist Steve Paikin reported being threatened with arrest, and police firing rubber bullets into a peaceful crowd and punching someone who had identified himself as a journalist). And your one comment not defending the police?
    That’s not necessarily an unreasonable assessment.
    Yes, not “I agree”. Not even “that’s a reasonable assessment”, a statement which wouldn’t necessarily imply agreement since something may be reasonable yet false. You could have even just nudged it down another notch to “that’s possibly a reasonable assessment” and leave the door open on whether you think this assessment you may or may not agree with is actually (rather than possibly) reasonable. But instead you went one step further and rhetorically weakened it to “not necessarily an unreasonable assessment”. Strong words there.
    After everything the police force did this weekend, virtually every politician has now lined up to support them and a terrifyingly large portion of the Canadian population (even among those intelligent enough to manage to operate a computer) seems to think that the only problem here is the police didn’t do enough to really give it to those damn protesters. And this atmosphere, this is what you chose to contribute.
    When speech is warranted, silence is itself a statement.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    So in short, you’re speaking for me because somehow I cannot do it myself. That’s great. Don’t do that.
    Should I go on and make knee-jerk comments as they might please you? You know, such as, “All cops — no wait, all pigs — are the horse manure on the bottom of society’s shoe!” Or maybe, “These jack-booted thugs, every single police officer out there, brutalized peaceful protestors all weekend and must be held accountable — every damn last one of them wearing the uniform!” These are just as stupid as someone saying, “All those effin’ protestors without jobs and still in university did nothing all weekend except cause trouble, and they should all have been jailed for disturbing the peace.” “Undifferentiated masses,” as rek curiously put it to Colin, is a disingenuous way of looking at a large body of people and painting everyone with the same brush. That goes for protestors, and that also goes for peace officers.
    Somehow, I get the feeling that hearing blanket statements is the only thing you and others want to hear. I’m sorry. You’ll have to find others to make them. You won’t have any trouble with that.
    What I thought I’d been saying over these past three days is thus: first, there’s the obvious matter of being singled out as a city for this all-too-predictable debacle. Like Matt Blackett said on Spacing Toronto today, “If you build [the downtown core as the official riot area], they will come.”
    Second, our provincial executive behaved in a shady, illegal capacity when McGuinty’s cabinet surreptitiously gave unconstitutional power to law enforcement. He and/or his party must be ousted for wantonly violating the Charter.
    Last but certainly not least, there were unrepentant bastards hiding behind the badge of “law enforcement,” and there were nasty, unlawful bastards hiding behind the guise of “peaceful protesting.” Some of these bastards horribly abused their power, while the other bastards tarred lawfully assembling citizens as a mob of violent hooligans. And yes, non-violent protestors on Saturday, if they knew what to look for (i.e., the hindsight of past G20/WTO demonstrations), could have had within their power to subdue the very black-clad bastards who succeeded in dragging a lot of good people down and drowning out their planned messages. On Sunday, it was the non-violent protestors who were genuinely victimized by top-down tactics by the ISU.
    Insofar as what is documented and confirmed, I (much like a lot of us!) want all these bastards held legally accountable for their actions and, wherever possible, utterly humiliated. For what? For abusing citizens and for manhandling non-violent protestors under their watch. For breaking from their assigned role as peace officers — whose job is to serve and protect the citizens under the laws afforded by Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution. For piling into vans from Québec and coming to Toronto to defecate in our municipal living room because their tearing our home apart was, to them, “not violence . . . but means of expression.” And most importantly, for the sexual assault and mistreatment of detainees by ISU.
    For those officers on the street who were ordered to get into formation for blocking, kettling, and charging at citizens, I’m still not convinced that many of them were looking forward to it. I’m really sorry, bray (and rek and others), but I know people across the gamut from left to right, from law enforcement to anarchists and lots in between. You might, too. I’m just not buying that all these officers are evil incarnate. But their superiors who gave orders — captains, Chief Blair, etc. — are the ones who seriously wronged our civil society. Along with those who sexually and physically assaulted detainees, the superiors giving those orders are the parties where our collective ire must be aimed.
    So bray, please feel free to correct me, but what I think you want to have — as do other Torontonians — are quick and certain answers that will explain everything that went down over the weekend. Even the impatient, emotional part of me wants that. But based on no shortage of past experiences, this is not going to happen. Answers will not materialize overnight, and these will not be a straight and narrow narrative with a predictable ending. If we’re serious (and I think we are), then we as citizens must get settled in for a long, protracted investigation. As necessary, our role as citizens is to add the pressure for issuing criminal indictments for those officers being charged with abuses of power and for unprovoked assaults at the individual level — both on the street and on Eastern Avenue. But censuring the entire police force will solve nothing.
    Likewise, for those people calling themselves “protestors” — whose goal was to stir anarchy, destroy storefronts, and amplify tensions — we hold them to the same fire as those bad cops. Having every protestor censured (as some Canadians have bellyached) will solve nothing.
    “Silence in itself is a statement,” you said. It is. From what I can see, none of us are remaining silent — not, you, not me, and not anyone infuriated and sickened by what happened. The silence comes from those who called the shots and those who took the shots.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    My comment #31 was a reply made to you. Sorry about the confusion.

  • rek

    ‘”All cops — no wait, all pigs — are the horse manure on the bottom of society’s shoe!” Or maybe, “These jack-booted thugs, every single police officer out there, brutalized peaceful protestors all weekend and must be held accountable — every damn last one of them wearing the uniform!”‘ “I’m still not convinced that many of them were looking forward to [charging and kettling, etc]…. I’m just not buying that all these officers are evil incarnate.”
    Is that really what you hear in your head when you read my posts?
    Sigh.
    Harper needs to be held accountable.*
    McGuinty needs to be held accountable.†
    Blair needs to be held accountable.
    ISU unit commanders or captains, however they were structured, need to be held accountable for any and all illegal orders given, as well as any loss of control over individuals in their command.
    Groups of officers who followed illegal orders need to be held accountable.^
    Individual officers who committed individual acts of brutality or abuse, or violated the Charter Rights of individuals in their custody, need to be held accountable.
    * For whatever role he and his staff had in security procedures as they were applied outside the fence. Forcing Toronto to host is not a crime. Ignoring Miller is not a crime. Harper ought to pay for that in the next election — not that Toronto was going to vote Conservative — but that’s a matter for the court of public opinion, not law.
    † As well as anyone at Queen’s Park who was complacent with the invocation of an unconstitutional act in secret.
    ^ “Just following orders/doing my job” is not a legal (or moral) defence.
    And, to make it abundantly clear (while I have the painted alphabet blocks out) because I wouldn’t want anyone to assume I think you need to be wearing a badge to be guilty:
    Black bloc smashy-smashy types need to be held accountable.
    Protesters who actually did commit crimes need to be held accountable.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    Obviously, it isn’t. Is the only thing you hear when I’ve written that I’m somehow a bleeding heart to, of all parties, the police?
    Sigh.
    Well, if anything, this most recent response is probably the most cogent I’ve heard you make. With minor exceptions, we are on the same page. On two points:
    • You’re correct: forcing a city to host the G20 is not a crime.
    With G20 and WTO’s history in recent years, it is a serious breach of trust to declare a city the host when its citizens can all but interpret this as a political manoeuvre to deliberately sabotage and disrupt their home. If you believe Toronto wasn’t thinking this beforehand, it’s because you weren’t paying attention. Torontonians have been speaking with a foreboding sense of dread for months. So yes, Harper must be held accountable — politically or legally otherwise — for knowing this would happen, And yes, it would take someone waking up from a fifteen-year coma or someone with significant brain damage to believe that telling a city to host this kind of event wasn’t a political middle finger to said city. With possible exception to his own back yard of Calgary, I say this about any major city in Canada drafted into the ugly job (including Québec, which already hosted this kind of nightmare once already).
    • “Just following orders/doing my job” is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the presumption made by some, including to some extent your comments, that anyone:
    a) who was a police officer,
    b) who was working that day,
    c) who was dispatched to crowd control,
    d) who was ordered to don riot gear, and
    e) who was trained in what to do in order to keep the peace and keep people safe,
    . . . is, by default, guilty of a crime. This is what I’m fairly sure I hear from you and from a few others. If there was a squad or team who “followed illegal orders,” then the crown should hold them accountable in court.
    But before that happens, we have to know what was:
    a) an illegal order,
    b) whether those following that order were aware it was illegal,
    c) whether anyone expressed reservations (i.e., insubordinately questioning their superior) for being aware it was questionably legal at best, and
    d) whether intent to follow that order was out of negligence (cf., “We followed that order not knowing about the legality or situation of x, y, or z”), or malice (cf., “We knew it was probably not the most legal thing, but we had to do what it took to carry out those orders”).
    Until these are established, then we’re just out for a quick-blame vendetta. And we have to be better than that if we as Torontonians who were hurt by last weekend want any chance to walk away from this historic event on the high road.

  • http://undefined bray

    So in short, you’re speaking for me because somehow I cannot do it myself.
    Oy. To quote you: “How hard is this to comprehend?” As I noted at the beginning of comment, you made twenty five comments on G20 related stories over the weekend. Clearly you are capable of speaking for yourself. It is exactly the fact that you chose *not* to speak on certain topics that is the basis of my comment. I was not speaking for you, I was interpreting your silence in the only way that makes any sense.
    Should I go on and make knee-jerk comments as they might please you? You know, such as, “All cops — no wait, all pigs — are the horse manure on the bottom of society’s shoe!”
    I accuse you of failing to criticize the police in any real way and this is your response? Is that really how you view things? That there is no room between silence and knee-jerk comments?
    (And, what have I said, by the way, that suggests that I would refer to police officers as “pigs”?)
    “Undifferentiated masses,” as rek curiously put it to Colin,
    I was going to say “Yes, that is curious, after all the pluralization implies a differentiation.” but then I read his comment and he actually says, “one undifferentiated mass”. I fail to see what’s curious about that.
    Somehow, I get the feeling that hearing blanket statements is the only thing you and others want to hear. I’m sorry. You’ll have to find others to make them. You won’t have any trouble with that.
    God, yes, the poor police force. With powerful enemies like…uh…who? And no friends except pretty much everyone with any power in Canadian society.
    What I thought I’d been saying over these past three days is thus: first … Last but certainly not least, there were unrepentant bastards hiding behind the badge of “law enforcement,”
    Gee, is that what you thought you’d been saying? And how did you think you’d been saying it? Telepathy? I made a very specific accusation in my comment, namely that the only critical thing you’d said about the actions of the police force this weekend was that the view that they had “overcompensated on Sunday” was “not necessarily an unreasonable assessment.” If I’m wrong in this, please correct me. One would think you would have had time to do so while writing such a long response.
    And yes, non-violent protestors on Saturday, if they knew what to look for (i.e., the hindsight of past G20/WTO demonstrations), could have had within their power to subdue the very black-clad bastards who succeeded in dragging a lot of good people down and drowning out their planned messages. On Sunday, it was the non-violent protestors who were genuinely victimized by top-down tactics by the ISU.
    You certainly seem to have read my comment. Did you read the part where I said, “on Saturday that notorious anarchist Steve Paikin reported being threatened with arrest, and police firing rubber bullets into a peaceful crowd and punching someone who had identified himself as a journalist”. Even if you thought I was lying, five seconds worth of research would have confirmed this. Strange how this information made no dent on your narrative which manages to gloss over the actions of police officers on Saturday while simultaneously blaming non-violent protesters for failing to “subdue” a gang of violent thugs (I’m still curious how that works. Is it some kind of horse whisperer type thing?)
    And yet you seem amazed that anyone could think you’re biased towards the police force.
    I’m just not buying that all these officers are evil incarnate.
    Who, exactly, are you talking to here?
    If we’re serious (and I think we are), then we as citizens must get settled in for a long, protracted investigation. As necessary, our role as citizens is to add the pressure for issuing criminal indictments for those officers being charged with abuses of power and for unprovoked assaults at the individual level — both on the street and on Eastern Avenue.
    I think you’re being naively sanguine about the chance of any investigation worth the name, much less indictments. Why have an investigation when the mayor, in addition to numerous other politicians, has declared that they did a super great job this weekend. And especially since even someone like you, who’s probably in the top 5% in terms of enthusiasm for such an investigation, seems to be far more interested in talking about how police officers aren’t evil and they’re just people and they would have preferred to be at home with their families than criticizing any of the actions taken by the police force this weekend.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    And I find that you’re being unreasonable for drawing a bevy of conclusions and assumptions I have not expressed. Given that you seem to have a more thorough grasp of what I wrote and what I think than even I do, I think you and I are done here.
    Unleash your lack of nuance upon someone else. Cheers.

  • http://undefined bray

    A brief recap:
    * I claim “when the subject is the police, every single comment [of yours] but one has been arguing with people who are criticizing them.” where the single other comment was so weak to hardly be recognizable as criticism.
    * You respond saying “What I thought I’d been saying over these past three days is [some other stuff and] Last but certainly not least, there were unrepentant bastards hiding behind the badge of ‘law enforcement,’”
    * I repeat my claim and ask you for an example of such criticism, saying “If I’m wrong in this, please correct me.”
    * Suddenly you don’t feel like talking to me anymore.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    Suddenly it was not. A proper recap it was not. Anyone who wants to start from the top (starting with the first comments I made about the G20 last month) and read everything can do so and arrive to their own informed assessment.
    You and I, however, are done.

  • http://undefined bray

    Do you actually believe this stuff? Just click on the G20 tag link and go read all your comments over the weekend. It took me about five minutes. If you had actually offered any criticism of the police, it would be trivial to post it here and make me look like a fool. Please do. I’m begging you.

  • http://undefined rek

    “I was referring to the presumption made by some, including to some extent your comments, that [any police officer there] … is, by default, guilty of a crime. This is what I’m fairly sure I hear from you and from a few others.”
    I would love to see an unambiguous example of this, because it certainly wasn’t my intent.
    “Until these are established, then we’re just out for a quick-blame vendetta.”
    No, until then we’re talking about the crimes we suspect and/or know occurred but do no yet have a legal framework, evidence dockets or badge numbers to reference.
    People are angry at Blair and the ISU and what happened, and have every right to be.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    Yep. I’m in line like everyone else waiting to see Blair and ISU have their day of ignominy.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    I have no interest to make you look like a fool.
    And grovelling is very unbecoming on a grown person like yourself.

  • http://undefined bray

    And grovelling is very unbecoming on a grown person like yourself.
    Either you actually think that that was literal, rather than rhetorical, begging on my part or you don’t in which case that just reads as a weak attempt to hurt my feelings.
    I’m ready any time to admit that I was wrong, if you’d just supply the evidence. And to give some advice in return, since you’re a grad student and therefore likely interested in being an academic: people who can’t admit when they’re wrong and can’t confront their own cognitive biases tend to make lousy academics.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    Ooh. Baiting. Nice one.
    Not hungry.

  • http://undefined bray

    I’m not sure what you’re referring to but I was just stating facts. But, yes, this is obviously (to me and to any reader intelligent enough for me to care about) pointless: I was right, you’re constitutionally and disappointingly incapable of admitting such, and it’s time to move on. Oh well.

  • http://bit.ly/accozzaglia accozzaglia

    Whatever helps you sleep better tonight.