Crowd Control

The image of the bland, unflappable Canadian whom nothing much excites out of his habitual attitude of lethargic disinterest has of late been upended, with two high-profile instances of group malfeasance when complainants or celebrants massed in Toronto and in Vancouver to exercise their right of assembly and freedom of speech in relation to the G-20 summit (2010) and the Stanley Cup (2011), respectively received ample news coverage.

Much has been written about police brutality at the G-20 summit. Where groups of protesters felt they had been unnecessarily man-handled and submitted to humiliating, gratuitous attention and apprehension by the police. There were hordes of protesters, there to express their anger and dismissive dismay at the privileged actions of the world's mover and shakers and economic giants.

Many such groups were treated by the police with consideration in recognition of their legitimate right to gather, and with the respect due them as a result of their civil behaviour. These peoples' voices have been drowned in the clamour of many others who insist they were brutalized, and that police over-reacted when peaceful protests led somehow to viciously violent criminal acts.

Much of the black-clad violators of the public peace were actually bussed in from the Province of Quebec, where dissent can and does turn quite violent. There were anarchists present, of a violent persuasion, who were determined to make good their promise to be present and actively troublesome. But it was the atrocious behaviour of the Black Blob types mingling with the crowd that set the stage as they broke shop windows, pillaged, beat people and torched police cars.
Paassen/The Globe and Mail" title="A G20 summit protester throws a chair at a coffee shop window in downtown Toronto. | Kevin Van Paassen/The Globe and Mail"

The police, from multiple jurisdictions, including the RCMP, the OPP and Peel Regional as well as representatives from 22 other police forces, were clearly unprepared for the violence that descended on downtown Toronto. Despite their collective presence for a common protective and security purpose there were intra-force squabbles for recognition of who was ultimately responsibly authoritative.

Moreover, not all police present of the thousands that were tasked to provide security, were trained and dressed for their own protection with riot gear. Some on bicycles were able to manoeuvre about well, but they were vulnerable to being trapped among rioters who didn't mind being physical and threatening with isolated police.

The Toronto police force ended up frantically responding to calls for assistance from their own for rescue from the mobs.

So yes, some innocent enough protesters who were provocative without being threatening, managed to provoke police into a response that the protesters later criticized as over the top. And police, obviously fed up by the myriad of different types of physical and law-and-order challenges that came their way, responded less than politely in brusquely rounding up anyone they thought was out of line.

Many of the innocent-enough bystanders were busy taking photographs of looters, breakage and entering, and the firing of police cars. There were no public-onlooker interventions in an attempt to restore order and rescue the peaceful protest from the wild mayhem that ensued. That the police have been held to account for their actions is well and good. But questions must still be posed with respect to the protesters' presence and actions and purpose.

In the end, those who expose themselves to situations where there is a fair chance that violence will ensue do so knowingly for the simple reason that these types of protests often enough descend into violent displays of criminal behaviour. With the excitement of being included in the event comes the potential of being the recipient of police responses that speak to the violence perpetrated by some and attributed to many.