The Ontario Ombudsman office has concluded what people like myself have known all along, from what we saw with our own eyes, and experienced first hand. That, during the G20 summit in Toronto, police acted in a way that was not consistent with our fundamental legal rights. Rather, they outright violated them.
Arbitrary arrests, arbitrary detention, and arbitrary search were conducted en masse, across the city, from Allen Gardens to Parkdale, and everywhere in between. And they continued to be conducted even a full 24-hours after the summit, for which the security of it’s attendees was ostensibly the reason therein.
Even with the security of the G20 leaders in mind, the government and the police have no proper authority to suspend basic civil liberties, even in the cause of security for the summit. Security does not come before our basic civil rights, and to be presumed innocent before the law, to not be detained, searched or arrested without proper cause.
Certain law and order types, unfortunately, do not believe that this should be the case. In fact, they’re far too willing to give the state and police leeway to violate rights in the name of security. This is extremely unfortunate. Especially considering, in my experience, these same people are among the biggest detractors of human rights commissions for the very reason they do not believe these commissions uphold “real” rights, and do not follow “real” due process.
It turns out, that when “real” rights are on the line, and when “real” due process is subsumed for the purposes of security, and especially when the primary victims are university-aged left-wing protestors, that the general attitude among these otherwise morally-outraged individuals is that these hooligans got what was coming to them.
But lets give credit where credit is due. Some conservatives, like Mark Steyn, have spoken out against the police abuse. But where is, and excuse me for asking, Ezra Levant on the issue? I’ve nay heard a word from him on G20 policing.
I supported Levant on the free speech file — and I would again. Freedom of speech is far too important to let petty political differences get in the way. But Ezra, and various other conservatives who shared in the outrage at the targeting of political speech before Human Rights Commissions, seem all to comfortable with police beating up left-wing protesters on the streets of Toronto.
I’m no socialist. You could even go so far as to call me an anti-socialist. And I’m under no illusions that many, if not most, of the demonstrators on the streets of Toronto could be labeled as such. But that doesn’t mean they have any less rights.
But we know, with certainty, that it wasn’t just socialists who were arrested. In fact, even some fairly conservative individuals were arrested in the Queen & Spadina kettle. Among the protests coming down Spadina Ave that day, included a group of fiscal conservative protesters who were protesting the financial bailouts. Yes, that’s right. Some of them got arrested, too.
In the case of the mass arrests at Queen & Spadina on Sunday and on the Esplanade the night prior, where TVO host Steve Paikin was threatened with arrest, despite thousands and thousands of hours of video footage, there is absolutely no evidence of anything other than peaceful demonstrations occurring. There is only unspecified police “intelligence”, according to Toronto Police chief Bill Blair that there were “elements” within these peaceful demonstrations that were preparing to unleash untold levels of anarchy on the city.
The Esplanade protest, such that it was, by all accounts was a largely unpartisan one. It’s message seemed largely, “this is our city, and we damn well have a right to be here”. And you know what? They damn well did.
This notion of “preventative arrest” is one of the most insidious and egregious notions of law enforcement I have ever come across in this country. The notion was such that, since police had “intelligence” that “some individuals” in the larger crowd were planning on using black bloc tactics, they had to arrest everyone to make sure they got those few individuals.
Surprisingly, most law and order conservatives I talk to are more than happy with that. Their response, in earnest, is “what did you expect on the G20 weekend? They shouldn’t have been there.”
That’s right. We should obey our masters and wilfully and graciously waive our basic rights whenever the government decides to hold an international event in your backyard. And it was, most certainly in my backyard. In fact, and as so many fist-pumping pro-policing conservatives conveniently ignore, is that I and tens of thousands of people lived not just near, but within the security perimeter the government imposed on us.
Property owners found themselves informed their homes and business would essentially be a no-rights zone for 3-4 days. They were told they would need to register with the RCMP to have the right to come and go from their own property.
Yet, these law and order conservatives will kick and scream about property rights. Unless it’s the property rights, of those “downtown elitists” being abridged, I guess. Rights are simply things that can be bent and broken to ideological ends to these people.
So if you’re one of those people who actually cares about civil liberties, just remember who all these people are, the next time they wax outraged about freedom of speech, due process, or property rights. Remember how situational and self-interested their value of these rights are. Remember how they sat back and said nothing in this case, and in some cases, cheered the police and the state on for all it’s abuses of liberty. Remember that. I know I will.
Rights are merely permissions that those in power grant you until the instant they are no longer convenient.
That really is the Canadian approach to individual rights. Just look at how the Charter itself is written. Section One sets out a huge caveat by allowing laws to infringe on our “fundamental freedoms” (association, expression, search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.). So right off the bat, its idea of rights are not inalienable and natural, but merely a revocable privilege bestowed by the state.
And in case that isn’t deferential enough, the Notwithstanding Clause gives the provinces another avenue to override our fundamental freedoms.
Our rights are a joke. The intent of our political leaders has consistently been to provide only a veneer of protection that can be discarded whenever they feel it necessary. The G20 just proves how absurdly low their threshold is. If facing down a few dozen second-rate vandals is enough to make them go apeshit, just imagine what would happen during a really bad civil disturbance. God help us.
“Section One sets out a huge caveat by allowing laws to infringe on our “fundamental freedoms” (association, expression, search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.). So right off the bat, its idea of rights are not inalienable and natural, but merely a revocable privilege bestowed by the state.”
Well, not so fast. Section 1 is troubling at face value, but the Supreme Court has created a standard known as the Oakes Test, which defines the standard by which what is an acceptable limit on Section 2 rights in a “free and democratic society”.
In order for a Section 1 consideration to be upheld the court said this:
First, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations. In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective. Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair “as little as possible” the right or freedom in question. Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of “sufficient importance”.
Spazmo:
One thing. When the court upholds a law on Section 1 grounds, it still remains the case — legally — that the law violates a right.
Section 1 doesn’t revoke rights. Charitably, it balances the weight of the right against other considerations. That’s compatible with a natural rights view.
Indeed, the American courts arrived at a similar balancing test on their own.
Terrence: OK, I understand how that is correct in a legal sense. But I confess I don’t see much difference between “you don’t have that right” and “you have that right, but we are allowed to infringe it”. In both cases you can’t really exercise the right, because someone’s going to stop you either way.
If you regard rights as things that others may not legitimately forbid you from doing, then I’d argue that there’s no distinction to be made here.
Fair point about the US Supreme Court’s interpretation of their constitution, though. I’m beginning to doubt that it’s even possible to protect individual rights from any parliament or judiciary.
You weren’t right all along. You denied that McGuinty suspended civil liberties in secret. You claimed there were no regulation. Further, you railed against Harper when policing is a provincial matter.
You denied that McGuinty suspended civil liberties in secret.
I think you’ve stopped taking your pills, Michael.
What so many conservative idiots fail to realize is that, despite a week of martial law, all the window breaking took place within a 90 minute period. During that period no arrests were made.
Despite popular misconception, the arrests did not start on Sunday; they began in Queen’s Park the afternoon shortly after the Black Bloc had ditched their disguises – showing that they were done for the day. With the vandals unable to continue their spree because they no longer had disguises, the police decided to clear the park, where there are no windows to break, and arbitrarily arrest many and push the rest back onto streets where, if the crowd were so inclined, they could cause damage.
There are many reasons why the police would do this. However, public safety and the prevention of property damage are not among them.
Spazmo,
I see what you’re saying, but here’s one difference. It’s not much, but it is worth something.
When a court decides a rights-infringement is justified under Section 1, that justification can later be called into question. The Oakes Test is very evidence-based, and new evidence can undermine the original justification, allowing the rights-claim to reassert itself.
That’s what went on in Justice Himel’s recent decision striking down the anti-prostitution laws. The Supreme Court had upheld at least some of those laws before in a reference case, but Himel brought new evidence to bear about the dangers of being a prostitute when prostitution is made effectively illegal.
Stare decisis makes it difficult for courts to reverse themselves. But it’s easier, relatively speaking, for a court to reassess a Section 1 justification for the infringement of a right that it is agreed exists than it is to change its mind about whether a right exists in the first place.
I’ll tell you why Ezra hasn’t come out against these police abuses: 1) This might embarass Dear Leader Harper and 2) Ezra Levant has lost his mind. He actually has mused on his website about the US ‘taking action’ against Assange. I don’t like Assange that much but accusations of espionage/hacking are ridiculous. Levant is a liability to the free speech cause and is best left alone.
If you are as frustrated as I am about the abuse of powers of police during the G20 (especially the fact that Toronto Chief of Police Bill Blair is still in power after admittedly lying to citizens about their civil rights resulting in individuals being unlawfully searched and detained), then follow this link for contact information for the City of Toronto (mayor and council) and a sample letter asking for the dismissal of Police Chief Blair:
http://thinkingradically.blogspot.com/2010/12/toronto-mayor-city-council-contact.html
~Jalex
thinkcontroversial.wordpress.com