Sincerely, MAB

Allow me to preface this whole post by saying that I am not, nor have I ever been, an expert in constitutional or criminal law. I may have a degree in political science, but there are lots of people out there who'll have far more informed and educated perspectives and opinions on the subject. Additionally, given that this is still a developing story, there are a great deal of facts that have yet to surface, and may never surface. So consider this some reflections on the subject of police actions, security and protest actions. So, without any further ado, here's what MAB thinks about all the G20 craziness.

I am very concerned by the implications of the police and government response to both legitimate protests and the black bloc tactics, especially when oversimplified by politicians and pundits, and when all protesters are painted with the same brush. I think we have a great deal to be concerned about, including the sanctity of charter rights, the power of police, and the justification for security.

Let me first put all my preconceptions and biases out on the table for the sake of intelligent discourse. Firstly, I believe that human rights, from which our Charter Rights derive, are inalienable and are inviolable. Of course, the Charter offers a provision for the violation of those rights in a time-limited and politically accountable fashion. As a member of a democratic society, I strongly believe that we cannot pick or choose which rights we apply or don't in any given situation, and the rights and freedoms of individual citizens (and the citizenry at large) are non-negotiable.

Additionally, I easily fall within the socially "progressive" camp. This predisposes me to a certain way of perceiving this world. And finally, I've tried to absorb as much information from news reports to press releases to YouTube videos and first-hand reports. Of course each of these sources is biased, but by sampling large and wide, I've tried to reduce that bias as much as possible and developed a representative sample of the information out there.

So, what does this all boil down to?

Firstly, I cannot and will not condone violence and vandalism as means of political expression. Violence and vandalism, as part of the greater civil disobedience toolbox, can be very powerful, but if not properly managed, often lends itself to damaging your cause in the long run. However, in a democratic (ostensibly!) society, I am fairly confident that the state's monopoly on the use of violence is well enough balanced by the various social-political-legal frameworks in place. That doesn't mean it's perfect, and that there aren't opportunities for abuse by the state (more on that later), but I think overall, our political system allows for a fairly balanced monopoly on the use of violence. Therefore, I contend that the use of violence during a protest is both unnecessary and excessive.

Secondly, I recognize one's fundamental freedoms (section 2 of the Charter), namely freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and of other media of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association. In the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often improperly credited to Voltaire), "“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." For me, that is the case for a large number of the "causes" at the G20 protests, and in fact, some of what was being said inside the security fence as well, but as freedom of speech is a fundamental right, I'm a-okay with you protesting, and it is under that guise that I will stand up to protect your right to say it.

Thirdly, I recognize that the safety and security of the general population is an important function of government.

So, where does all this leave us? Over 1000 arrests, most of which were for "breach of peace". There were a number of reports of people being stopped on the street and being subjected to searches and being asked to provide identification without being detained. Sections 7 through 14 of the Charter define what our legal rights are. I'm not going to get into a detailed treatise about the applicability of those laws. Suffice it to say, a number of police actions (including the searches and seizure of personal property without detainment, restriction of access to public grounds without a search, etc.) fell into the legally dark-grey or illegal area.

I think Adam Radwanski, writer for the Globe and Mail said it best on Wednesday:

It would be perfectly reasonable to argue that police should be given some benefit of the doubt on their controversial behaviour over the course of the G20 weekend, and to express sympathy for the very difficult position they were put in. But [Ontario Opposition Leader Tim] Hudak went a step further, effectively arguing that if you defend your civil liberties – or even talk about them - you’re no better than the idiots who were smashing up storefronts.

Source: The Globe and Mail, emphasis is mine.

This is what's particularly troubling for me, especially with the way the political masters have been responding. Somehow, defending, let alone discussing, one's charter rights is equated with being a hooligan. I agree with Radwanski's assertion that police should be given some benefit of the doubt, but I don't believe blindly supporting the police in this case is constructive.

What would go a long way here for me would be for a comprehensive, public and independent review of security procedures and protocol to determine if the use of tactics and force was appropriate. In fact, any time we undertake large police actions in this country, this should be the normal course of action. This provides a great check and balance against rights being eroded in the name of security.

I've watched a number of videos on YouTube since this all began, but the videos of the "protest" at Queen and Spadina really stick out in my mind of police aggressiveness gone wrong. You have a small group of roughly fourty protesters milling about, and innumerable police, surrounding them on all fronts, imploring them to move and get out of the way, but not allowing them anywhere to go. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Every time I see a video or read another story or watch another I experience two very distinct emotions: a rage that I haven't really felt about anything before, and a distinct sense of powerlessness, or despair. It's a strange mix because I really want to get out there and do something about this, but at the same time, I'm restricted by a variety of factors (the least of which is my commitment to political neutrality). So where does this leave me? I'll do what I know best: Write letters, make phone calls, and activate my personal networks. Whatever comes of this, it must be in the interests of democracy and human rights, lest we risk slipping deeper and deeper into the security state.

I know I haven't really said much here, but the whole event has left me confused and angry, two things that don't lend themselves well to rational thought. I'm happy to engage anyone in an intelligent discussion on this subject. Police have a hard job to do, no doubt, and I truly respect the good work that they do of keeping me and my fellow person safe. But when police are suddenly the aggressors, sanctioned by the state, you end up with an attack on all the things you consider fundamental to peace, order and good government.