G20 Protest updates: largest mass arrests in Cdn history?

by: Daniel De Groot

Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 18:00


Following up on yesterday's post about the G20 protests turning to widespread property damage (decide for yourself whether that constitutes "violence") on the part of a small group of agitators.  It's very difficult to create any kind of coherent narrative about so many events in so many places.  So I'll highlight a few anecdotes I've found that give some kind of flavour of the protests and the Police response.  

On the bright side, I'm not aware of anyone being seriously hurt during the day or night's events, though naturally there will be some amount of injuries sustained by those arrested, and at a protest this morning a small number of rubber bullets were fired which likely injured some people.  No deaths is still something to breathe a sigh of relief over.  

Daniel De Groot :: G20 Protest updates: largest mass arrests in Cdn history?
On the subject of property damage, it's worth noting some real people (ie not just faceless corporations) are hurt by this.  A CBC journalist I respect tweeted yesterday:


NatashaFatah Friend's report: Gerrard+Yonge small jewelery store completely smashed up. The poor old man/owner looked completely broken. #cbcg20 #g20

On the front of Police excessive force, a TV Ontario journalist witnessed a Guardian newspaper reporter being beaten and arrested without evident cause and arrested late last night.  He reported it in a series of tweets starting with this one:


i saw police brutality tonight. it was unnecessary. they asked me to leave the site or they would arrest me. i told them i was dong my job.

There were also moments of humanity on the line, as attested here:


kimfox Protester asks police offer how he's doing. Officer confesses he doesn't want to be here and misses family. Very human exchange #cbcg20

This morning, Police raided a U of T residence and have arrested over 70 people.  They arranged to parade each person out past the media to waiting buses.  Many of them were in sleeping attire, many without shoes on.  Police claim there were weapons and black clothing found in the vicinity of the residence, but I still find it difficult to imagine that they had actual probable cause to arrest all these people on positive ID that they were involved in crimes yesterday.  More likely this is a classic "police sweep" where these people will be held and released within 24 hours without charge.  This prompted this tweet which I don't know if it is correct, but if so, is a major statement on the undemocratic nature of the police response here:


durabilite RT @ieai: The #G20 is the largest mass arrest in Canadian history(550+ arrests), beating the 1970 War Measures(465) and 1981 bath raids(286)

This morning, some twitter traffic indicated a protest march started at a park near my home, headed to the G20 detention facility (dubbed "Torontimo" by some wags).  I took a few pictures of the march as it went along Queen Street east.  


The protest started in a park named for a revered labour leader.

It went east along Queen street initially.  The pink banner reads "free our comrades."

This guy appears to be some kind of reactionary counter-protester.  He's wearing a button for a conservative mayoral candidate, and his t-shirt said "fuck anarchists" or something like that.

I notice the police aren't wearing helmets nor carrying batons and shields.  Yet, anyway.


At least a half dozen civilian pattern vans driven by police trailed the protest.  

A nearby house expresses their views of the whole event.

Possibly a police helicopter hovers overhead.

Same as the picture at top of the post, a local bank branch had been boarded up just in case.

My local starbucks closed for the same reason.

This protest is evidently a peaceful one.  I did not follow it to its destination at the detention centre, and wisely so as violence did erupt as Police employed rubber bullets, and arrested a number of (according to some reports, specifically targeted) protesters.

I don't have a lot more to add to all of this.  My impressions are no doubt based on selective information.  The Police at times seemed to demonstrate excellent restraint and at other times, fell short of the demands of their role in a democracy.  The mass arrests most alarm me, especially if most of those arrested are simply released later today.  It's hard to exercise the democratic right to protest if the police can just lock you up for 24 hours at whim.  

As for the vandals who I claimed were likely anarchists yesterday, I have seen nothing to indicate I was wrong about that, and some evidence to bolster it in the form of various videos of the vandalism taking place by black clad persons.  It's possible they were agents provocateur, but that is an extraordinary claim requiring appropriate proof (beyond that incident in Quebec).  There are definitely fringe element protesters who have radical visions for the effects of civil disruption and possibly just joyriders who have no political point but simply like vandalism and mayhem.  Any large gathering attracts a certain number of crazies too, and while none of this is the fault of the peaceful protesters it is a real challenge for them.  You can't reach the public at large if a protest turns destructive.  Almost no one listens anymore and police overreactions become justified in the eyes of many.  I have no idea how you fix this problem if you're a protest organizer, but it does need fixing.

The fall out will be significant in Canada, Toronto is not a mass protest city and is very unused to rioting.    


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I'd argue that the potential for mass civil unrest is a good way to keep shit like this out of one's city (0.00 / 0)
and hence, not really a problem that needs solving if you're protesting these meetings

If the meetings (4.00 / 1)
Are held in Davos or on an island somewhere in the Pacific, is democracy served?  All the world leaders meeting to coordinate policy and doing so far away from any common citizens?

It's not clear to me that's any better in terms of pushing them to do better for their populations.

Anyway, if ordinary people have to get hurt to achieve this aim, I'm far from convinced this is justly done.  The harms are very real, and the good it achieves very murky.  


[ Parent ]
well, if they're going to have the meetings no matter what (0.00 / 0)
At least preventing them from being held in [insert your city here] is a small thing the citizenry can do.  We get no say in the process and have no influence over the decisions made, at least we (i.e. residents of whichever city) can show them that they're not welcome.

Ordinary people are hurt by this process regardless.


[ Parent ]
But if they suspend the normal life of the city (4.00 / 2)
during the meeting, then they're simply bringing the isolation and otherworldliness of Davos or Brunei or wherever to Toronto or Strasbourg.

Democracy isn't really being served either way, it seems to me.


[ Parent ]
If they do that (0.00 / 0)
Then I suppose protesters can try to blockade the NYSE, physically shut down Wall Street, and try to send the financial markets into chaos every time there is a meeting.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
I'd argue that the potential for mass civil unrest is a good way to keep shit like this out of one's city (0.00 / 0)
and hence, not really a problem that needs solving if you're protesting these meetings

My mother flew in from Vancouver (0.00 / 0)
today.  Her connecting flight through Toronto was cancelled because of the protests, and she had to go via seattle instead.  I found that a bit over the top.

Poor Strategy (4.00 / 3)
As I understand it, to counter the efforts of agents provocateur, infiltrators, and police riots, the civil rights movement did five things:

1. Made sure that everyone who participated in demonstrations was trained in nonviolent action and agreed to remain nonviolent even if provoked.

2. Formed everyone into affinity groups so that everyone was supported by and accountable to someone else and no one could just casually "join" the demonstration.

3. Stationed nonviolent monitors to ensure that demonstrators remained nonviolent and infiltrators and provocateurs could not join in.

4. Had lots of legal observers with cameras to record any illegal behavior by "demonstrators" or police.

5. Publicized all of this in advance so that if any violence did break out, the public would know that it was not the demonstrators' fault.

The current zeitgeist of direct action allows "diversity of tactics" which means that nothing is off-limits and it is impossible to distinguish infiltrators, agents provocateur, and demonstrators from one another. Also, the corporate media has not reported at all on such things as preemptive detentions and police tactics like boxing peaceful demonstrators in. Together, this means that the public has no idea what is going on and must rely on inflammatory images of smashed windows and burning cars and dumpsters to decide who is at fault. As a result, protesters are attacked and hurt and still get a bad rap. And the crimes of the G8 are not discussed at all.

For more ideas, you might find useful my paper Effective Nonviolent Action.


Sigh - Of course it's violence (0.00 / 0)
If a pro-life demonstration turned into people committing the same level of property damage but not harming anyone physically, would you question describing it as violence?  Would you be angry if it was described as "violence" instead of violence?

Of course, you actually probably have a better chance of reaching the public at large if a protest turns destructive, since the media will have to report about it, but doing so probably requires a much higher level of destruction.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


No it's not (0.00 / 0)
What is your reasons for accusing anyone here of hypocrisy? That is a heavy charge with no support.

In answer to your questions: 1) No property damage (that does not lead to death or injury to persons) is not violence. This is true regardless of who does it. 2) Angry? Who cares.  I'd still say it wasn't violence. I'd still say it if I was the one who's property was destroyed.

Of course, one can still criticize any protest, and one can still criticize property destruction.  But that is not a warrant for characterizing what happened.

Support the Youth PROMISE Act


[ Parent ]




USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left

All Polls


Without Rasmussen




QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search