
Photo by Stephen Davis.
1) The Toronto lockdown is all the protesters’ fault.
Following 1999’s spectacular demonstrations against the World Trade Organization in Seattle, and 2001’s protests against the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, international political meetings of this kind have almost exclusively been held in small resort communities. (In Canada, for recent examples, see the 2007 Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting in Montebello, Quebec and the 2002 G8 Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta.) Hosting the G20 Summit in Toronto, of all places, represents a strange reversal of this nearly decade-long trend.
Downtown Toronto has become, infamously, the bastard offspring of a ghost town and a war zone. This is called “security,” and you and I are paying for it, to the tune of, if I’m not mistaken, a bajillion dollars. (Need I even mention the mini-Muskoka?) There is little need for symbolism here, because the barriers are real; layers and layers of fences and cops, keeping the world’s leaders—including the dictator of a billion-person totalitarian state and a president at the helm of two major wars—separate from concerned citizens. The price tag, the unprecedented restrictions—this is the fault of our leaders, not the demonstrators, especially since, as Richard Poplak has suggested, Harper & Co. could have just used Skype.
2) The protesters are violent.
There’s no delicate way to say this, so I’ll just say it: property destruction is not violence. Call it vandalism, call it criminal, call it destructive, call it fun, call it “propaganda by deed” (if you’re old-school) or “a diversity of tactics” (if you’ve been paying attention), call it stupid, childish or divisive. Call it what it is, but don’t call it violence.
Fighting back against the cops is violent, but self-defense necessitates a bit of muscle-flexing—especially when you’re facing a police force bristling with sweeping new powers and an arsenal of postmodern war machinery.
3) The protesters don’t know what they want.
This isn’t technically a myth, because it’s true. The thousands of people converging on Toronto this weekend represent a broad cross-section of creeds, from liberal to radical, from large non-governmental organizations and unions to smaller community groups to anti-capitalist collectives. Of course there is disunity, and of course there is no single, coherent message emerging from the water-cannoned masses. The G8 and G20 themselves hardly present a unified front, squabbling as they are over bank taxes and austerity measures and climate change. And yet few accuse our leaders of meeting for the sake of meeting, as so many accuse demonstrators of protesting for the sake of protesting.
Related on maisonneuve.org:
—Close-Up of a G20 Arrest
—The G20’s Entirely Redundant Swag Bags
—Behind the Firewall
Subscribe to Maisonneuve — Follow Maisy on Twitter — Like Maisy on Facebook
8 Comments
Sorry, but #1 and #2 are a bunch of crap. As you point out in #3, “the protesters” are not a unified group. There are angry, vocal, and determined non-violent protesters, and there are gangs of thugs who just want to bust things up, whether it’s at a G20 meeting or a Stanley Cup parade. That second group is violent, and it’s because of their aggression that there are more cops and more security measures. You’d have to be an idiot to NOT expect the authorities to react that way. As such, the violent idiots react to more security by trying to bust more things up, which in turn creates a need for even more security next time. Wash, rinse, repeat. It’s as predictable as the morning sunrise.
In that respect, #1 and #2 are not so much myths as over-generalizations. If it wasn’t for the thuggish behaviour of the thug-like minority of protesters, the rest of the protesters (the normal, angry, vocal ones) would be able to make their points better heard without being water-cannoned and dismissed as radical anarchists who don’t know what they’re talking about.
Personally, I’m far angrier at those thugs than I am at the G20 people, because those thugs are the main reason why the anti-G20 people are not being heard.
Posted by blork on June 25, 2010
It’s not clear whether you’d prefer the meeting to be held in a resort community or not. Which is worse — the security budget or the lack of access to leaders? Sorry, but there’s going to be security one way or another, and it’s actually to protect against far more serious threats than window-smashers.
Posted by wside on June 25, 2010
Property destruction is violence.
The only people who deny that are those whose property has not been deliberately destroyed.
Posted by ajsomerset on June 25, 2010
Those who protest are the lowest forms of the vulgarity since they know nothing but screaming and destruction of private property. Fools names and faces!
Posted by Charles Alden Snell on June 26, 2010
“There’s no delicate way to say this, so I’ll just say it: property destruction is not violence.”
But it’s funny how often property destruction leads to violence, which should be reason enough to avoid it.
Maybe you were never shown Norman McLaren’s “Neighbours” in school? You should watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZt_d_4OV-Q
Posted by John on June 26, 2010
There are now reports that rioters swarmed and attacked some of those who tried to stop the vandalism. So, uh, there.
This “diversity of tactics” doctrine is utter stupidity espoused by middle-class wannabe radicals who actually feel that Canada is an oppressive state to be “resisted.”
Please get over yourself.
Having said that, most of us in Toronto are outraged about the police abuses, which were by far the greatest violence of the weekend.
Posted by Matthew on June 29, 2010
I wish you had all read what I actually wrote. “Vandalism,” “criminal,” “destructive,” “stupid,” “childish” and “divisive” hardly add up to a seething defense of property destruction. Why such opposition to a bit of definitional clarity?
Posted by Drew on June 29, 2010
I’m just blown away by this diversity of tactics thing. The Black Bloc intimidate the press and frighten citizens (I will not forget the minimum wage-earning Burger King employees I saw huddling in fear of some Bloc-ers after they’d smashed apart their workplace.)
I’m really curious: do you believe political violence, even petty violence of the vandalism variety, is justifiable in Canada, and under what circumstances? I’m sorry, you seem like a swell guy, but since this Saturday, I bristle every time someone says “diversity of tactics.”
Posted by Matthew on June 30, 2010