City
Toronto police admit to making mistakes at G20 summit
Well, that only took a year. As the first anniversary of the G20 summit in Toronto arrives, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair has released a 70-page report that claims to take a "hard look" at how he and his officers handled the protests. "Many things we did very well," he writes in the introductory message. "Some things we did not."
Of the shortcomings and errors that Blair highlights, the kettling of some 300 people at Queen and Spadina and a general lack of preparedness for Black Bloc tactics are among the most egregious. "Better methods must be developed for extracting individuals posing a threat to public safety from within large crowds," the report reads.
By way of explanation for these mistakes, Blair somewhat disappointingly claims that "a relatively short planning time did not allow for full integration of the Planning Team with those responsible for managing police operations during the event."
He also hints at the fact that early police tactics may have escalated the situation. "Premature displays of real or implied force can lead to negative crowd reactions that may escalate a situation. The initial contact by public order officers with protest groups, in the absence of clear indications to the contrary, should be low key and measured. The dynamic nature of the protest activities that occurred during the G20 Summit required officers not properly trained or equipped to do so to execute POU techniques."
In something of a summary of the weekend's events, Blair notes that "while it was anticipated that violent protest might occur during the G20 Summit in Toronto, it was also expected that the majority of protests would be peaceful...Despite the many steps taken to minimize the occurrence of serious public disorder, violence and property damage was experienced in the downtown core during the G20 Summit. In total, 1118 people were arrested during the Summit, 39 of who reported being injured during their arrest. Ninety-seven police officers were injured in the course of carrying out their duties. No critical injuries or deaths occurred during the G20 Summit."
While the last line is likely meant to infer that things could have been much worse, where this report comes up short is in explaining (clearly and patiently) why so many were arrested, particularly given the fact that so few have been charged and that the play-by-play of the weekend's events seems to indicate that the police never got a handle on the majority of protestors engaging in Black Bloc tactics.
Read the full report here (PDF).
Photo by matthewcxlangford in the blogTO Flickr pool.
Discussion
45 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
Is he implying the majority weren't peaceful?
I hate bill Blair with a passion and think the bastard should resign and be tarred and feathered right out of the city, but I think his reasoning for not explaining that porion is because he'd be issueing indictments against his officers. There are pending legal decisions at hand, the SIU and the courts will make those indictments.
we are so far from being done talking about this. underage girls were stripped search by male officers, sometimes twice. a ttc employee was arrested in uniform. tourists and grocery shoppers were detained. a secret law was passed. the government and police lied repeatedly.
not until every phony charge has been dropped and every lawsuit settled and not even then will we stop talking about this.
does it make you uncomfortable? is it easier to ignore than admit? doesnt matter, children will be learning about this awful weekend in history class years from now.
if you want to live in an ignorance cloud go ahead but dont expect the rest of us to.
we will keep talking and trying to bring light to the injustice.
I think that this report is a step in the right direction. I fear that without things like great journalism by the Toronto Star uncovering identities of police officers who allegedly committed crimes (and who were being protected by hypocritical police officers) we wouldn't be seeing this kind of thoughtful report from Blair.
The police are important, but the 100% faith some people have in our authorities is dangerous for our democracy.
Police officers are there to enforce our rights as Canadian citizens. We expect them to uphold the law and act accordingly. For them to admit that they made a mistake means our rights were violated..and you want people to stop talking about this?
When you call 911 and the dispatch sends the ambulance to the wrong house and they admit to the mistake, lets see how much you want to stop talking.
Misinterpreting the law and not acting accordingly violate the core behaviour of a police officer. This isn't' about an officer forgetting to lock their gun or forget to wear their badge tag..its the friggin core of their job!
But none of that changes that the police messed up and broke many laws. The stupidity of the protestors is not a valid excuse. Ever.
ie: people getting beaten while in custody was very, very common. To the point where people in their department knew paperwork came from the Toronto Police before looking at the information just due to the blood that often spattered on the page when the arrested person was being fingerprinted.
We shouldn't stop talking about it until some serious changes in policy and tactics occur.
"Toronto protested the G20 along with peaceful groups such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Union, Greenpeace, Amnesty International, eco groups, people protesting higher taxes in the Province of Ontario which will start in a few days, old people, young people. children, and people from other countries came to protest the G20 Summit especially to protest the deficits run by these countries including Canada."
I see what you're saying: civil liberties: stupid. Amnesty International: stupid. People of Ontario: stupid. Old people: stupid. Protestign massive bailouts for corps while the public languishes in austerity: stupid. Speaking up for your beliefs at the proper forum for doing so: stupid. Labour Unions: stupid. Women's health: stupid. Being peaceful in the desginated protest zone: stupid. Going donwtown to support businesses after 100 or so vandals broke a few windows and burned 2 cars the day before and haven't done anything since: stupid. Thinking the police could act with restraint: stupid.
The only actually stupid act is the last one. Being so cowardly that you'd rather watch while the police trample the Charter than grow a pair: stupid.
My issues with the protesters are not about what they are standing up for, but how they do it. I feel that people need to examine how they fight for change that will make the most positive impact. Breaking store windows is irresponsible to the cause. Great, you have a voice, but it's meaningless if people don't give a shit what that voice says because of the negative image you end up portraying with particular protesting tactics.
Yeah, the vandalism was only done by a supposedly small group of people. However, everyone else should have separated themselves from that violent group immediately. Shouting "These people do not represent me or what I stand for". Instead they stood by, even cheered on the vandals and as a result destroyed any ounce of credibility they had.
As someone who shares the ideals of the people protesting on that first day, I was frankly more than a little pissed off that any messages were ruined due to the immaturity of a large portion of protesters.
For more info, see http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=223303614360763
Those weren't the protestors! Every single one of the legitimate protestors denounced the vandals, it's not their style. I agree, the vandals were morons, they carried a sign comparing harper to mao, ffs, they called themsel es anarchists but have ZERO idea what that really means. They were just there to break shit and cause a ruckus. They were not protestign anything and you canntop lump them together with the legit protests.
I don't think the messages were ruined, they don't have to be unless peopel decide to focus on that other crap, that's a choice, not an inevitibility or an assured consequence. That's especially true considering that these messages are enduring, they are bigger than the vandalism and they're issues present in most people's minds.
If it was legal for the police to beat people for being idiots most people commenting on this blog would be getting a beat down by our police.
In 1997, an overwhelming majority of Toronto police officers elected a thug to represent them as president of the Toronto Police Association.
Not all police officers are thugs but it's not just a few bad apples either.
There is only one way to handle a bully.
However, I feel the reactionary methods that the police participated in is absolutely justified in the face of the window-smashers and police-car-torchers. The truly innocent should have dispersed/fled once that broke out. The curious who stood around to watch shouldn't be surprised when they're mixed up in the action.
My question is, if you were the authorities, how would YOU have dealt with that situation?
You don't have to convince me that they were separate from the legitimate protesters. Try convincing everyone else that.
<i>"don't think the messages were ruined, they don't have to be unless peopel decide to focus on that other crap, that's a choice"</i>
And not <i>your</i> choice. It's <i>theirs</i>. Being apathetic about how people will tend to make that choice is negletful to your cause and an insult to people that really want to see a change.
Just look at the news media polls after the G20. Most people were fully on the side of the police, despite the brutality of their response. <b>There's</b> the choice you speak of.
But you. <b>You</b>, have a choice. You can consider how your actions will be viewed and how they will further or hinder your cause. And don't just slap a general "bringing attention to the issues" statement on it. How? How will it bring attention to the issue and is that attention you bring a good thing or bad? Failure to consider the consequences of your actions is irresponsible. You need to be smarter than that if you expect <i>real</i> change.
So, instead of expecting other people to make choices that agree with your distorted worldview, how about you first just focus on making your own choices, encourage others to do the same and the lot of you will all be better off.
You seem to be talkign to me as if I was a vandal that day, i wasn't, tyvm. you also seem really bent on pushign this idea that they ruined it for everyone, seems liek an agenda that seeks to issue self-fulfilling prophecy.
tbh, I'm not sure what you're trying to say at the end of your last post. Are you settign out an theory regarding how activist groups shoudl organize and get their message out? there's a lot of writing out there about that that gets that idea across more logically and more eloquently than you have.
What exactly do you think the legit activist groups out there that day could have done to keep people focused on their message? Really, it's not even about getting the general public's attention, it's about getting the attention of the G20 delegates, so much so that they think about what you're saying. Well, that was pre-empted by a ridiculously large fence set well away from the conference. Thank Harper and the ISU for that, another great job by them.
Given that info, the vandals may have had the right idea, make such a stink that no one can ignore you, but then, as you say, that cheapens the message, deligitimizes the protest. Anyways, Harper took care of that by blacking out the media that was showing the vandals doing their thing.
1) Have a clear message to begin with. Before the vandalism started there was no clear target of the protests. Just a grab bag of various standard issues. Poverty, etc. Most of it seemed to focus on local issues, rather than global. I saw a lot of people talking about Ontario tuition. Not exactly sure what that has to do with the Federal government and the G20, but whatever. Either way, nobody was rallying behind a clear message like had been done at previous G8 protests. On that first day I was a little embarrassed for us even before the vandalism started.
2) When vandalism starts, don't cheer for it. Leave the area so its clear that a minority of people are responsible. Maybe you didn't partake, but you still look like an asshole for supporting it. And news media pictures of hundreds and thousands of people watching a police car burn is not something that helps your credibility. If you believe this is incorrect you are seriously deluding yourself.
3) Take action against those hurting your message. Take the random guy in Vancouver for an example. Thousands of people took to the streets smashing windows and lighting fires post Stanley Cup and one guy stood up to the crowd. He got a beating because of it, but the image remained: There are still decent people out there. Even with the G20 there was a video of someone being physical with a dressed in black looter at a College Park cellphone store....Unfortunately that video was overshadowed by a video of a man yelling at the Eaton Centre. But imagine the impact a video of a group of people standing up against the supposedly hand full of people throwing rocks. Of course that didn't happen. Instead all we got was people standing, watching, cheering and taking pictures with cellphone cameras.
4)After a night of vandalism and violence, why head back into the streets? What the hell did you think was going to happen? Rallying in a place like Queen's Park with the small group of sensible people would have made more sense.
5) The first night the aggressors were the protestors. Many people were arrested, many of those for likely very legitimate reasons. Instead of focusing on your message you instead chose to rally about the many guilty people (and some non guilty) being arrested. Way to stay on message! You (and when I say you I mean protesters as a whole) had the world's stage and you chose to whine about the local police, who, at that point looked like the good guys to the rest of the world. At no point during the rest of the G20 would the topic move back to the <i>actual</i> issues.
In fact this was the only time people seemed to rally behind one issue....its just a shame that the issue was completely irrelevant to the stage and actors of the situation. Way to promote positive change to the global stage.
Seriously, the lot of the protestors should be ashamed of the image they portrayed, the huge step backwards it took us and the completely wasted message of serious global issues.
"Harper took care of that by blacking out the media that was showing the vandals doing their thing."
Because we all know that no images or video from major news outlets exist.
"Really, it's not even about getting the general public's attention, it's about getting the attention of the G20 delegates"
No. It's about getting the general public's attention. They are the ones that elect the leaders and delegates who don't give a shit what you think. They are the ones that put pressure on the officials in the only way it affects them: the threat of them not getting re-elected.
"Given that info, the vandals may have had the right idea, make such a stink that no one can ignore you, but then, as you say, that cheapens the message,"
It doesn't cheapen the message. It destroys it and gives fuel to those who are against it. They now can point to the irresponsible vandals and make themselves look better as a contrast. It makes things <b>worse</b>.
Work/spend as little as possible in Ontario to show how fiscally responsible you are.
HAPPY HST DAY!