# Absolutely disgusted



## jakey (Jul 8, 2008)

These G20 "anarchists" tearing up the city have no respect. I'm thoroughly disturbed by what I've been seeing on the news.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

just a brilliant idea to have this downtown toronto.

Have it in fraking Calgary. Sorry Calgarians, but you wanted him (Harper), you can have him and his crap. And we're so shocked this happened?

It only happened everywhere else.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

groovetube said:


> just a brilliant idea to have this downtown toronto.
> 
> Have it in fraking Calgary. Sorry Calgarians, but you wanted him (Harper), you can have him and his crap. And we're so shocked this happened?
> 
> It only happened everywhere else.


agreed.

except at least those other places aren't stupid enough to waste 1+ billion on security for something that can't be prevented.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

someone I forget who said, pitch a tent at CFB petawawa for the conference and let's see the arsewipes try to set a military vehicle on fire.

Would save a lot of money.


----------



## Chimpur (May 1, 2009)

Yeah it might have been smarter to have this in a less public, more secure location. 

But on the other hand, I don't get the point of these people. Why would you protest in such a way. It's certainly not going to get you listened to, it's not going to make anyone have ay goodwill towards you. If anything it just makes them look like fools!


----------



## Chris (Feb 8, 2001)

I say we set aside a large, well-secured reservation in Northern Saskatchewan/Manitoba/Ontario, and dump all these so-called anarchists in there to create their perfect society. Keep 'em locked away and see how they actually survive in a state of true anarchy.

I predict most wouldn't last a week.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Chimpur said:


> Yeah it might have been smarter to have this in a less public, more secure location.
> 
> But on the other hand, I don't get the point of these people. Why would you protest in such a way. It's certainly not going to get you listened to, it's not going to make anyone have ay goodwill towards you. If anything it just makes them look like fools!


The trouble makers don't have a message. They're just disturbers. They detract from those who do have a message and do more harm to the "protest" than the establishment.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

What I find completely flabbergasting is that there are 14,000 police in Toronto working this summit and they couldn't stop 100-200 vandals from setting police cars on fire and smashing umpteen shop windows. HELLO?

The only explanation (sort of) that I've seen is that the police were afraid of being drawn away from the security zone by these bozos and decided instead to let them be - which they clearly did as shown by the umpteen videos and photos that show nary an officer in sight of any of the vandals activity.

This is hardly a credible excuse - not with the numbers of well-armed police available and the number of vandals involved. 

So here we are - more than $1B spent to do what? 

Yes, it was "only" property damage, but it does not reflect well at all on the training or preparedness of this behemoth police force that they did nothing at all to anticipate it, prevent it or stop if from happening. That ordinary citizens like Howard Dale (assistant deputy crown attorney) were so angered by the vandals and the apparent lack of police action that they tried to take matters into their own hands and stop individual vandals speaks volumes.

I am beyond disgusted - at the vandals themselves, the police force that did nothing, but most of all, at the idiocy of holding this summit in a major city and spending a huge chunk of our tax dollars on something that has little or no direct benefit to Toronto, Ontario or Canada (other than all those pork-barrel projects that have nicely benefitted Tony Clement's riding, that is...). I hope that Canadians will remember this when the next federal election rolls around, or the next federal budget is released with over $1B in cuts to essential services.


----------



## Paul82 (Sep 19, 2007)

I agree, hosting it in dt Toronto was a stupid idea... last time Canada hosted the G8 it was in Kananaskis Country in 2002, they shut down and sealed off the provincial park, I remember hearing about a very small number (less than a dozen) of industrious protesters that tried hiking in.. but yea the main protests focused around the media centre in DT Calgary... all were non-violent and much smaller than anticipated... guess Calgarians aren't really the protesting type... and we were saved from more militant minded protesters by virtue of distance... personally I hope they throw the book at these so-called peaceful protestors... but I have a feeling that most will be released without charge as for many I doubt there is enough evidence to prosecute. 

When will people learn that there are FAR more effective ways of getting your voice out there than "protesting", with all the violence does anyone even know what message the protestors were trying to get across?


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Is everyone here _SURE_ the damage was done by "protesters"?

We might want to remember recent history:

Quebec police forced to own up to use of agent provocateurs at summit protest - Anarkismo

CBC News - Canada - Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest

sydwalker.info Blog Archive Met Police Agent Provocateurs: Dreyfus Affair 2

The Harper Index - Agents provocateurs active at Montebello?


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> Have it in fraking Calgary. Sorry Calgarians, but you wanted him (Harper), you can have him and his crap. And we're so shocked this happened?


So, what's the thrust here?

That what's currently happening in COTU is somehow Calgarian's/Harper's fault?

Am I reading this correctly?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

sure as hell ain't our fault. But somehow we have to put up with it.

Absolutely truly, the most brainless thing ever to hold this in downtown toronto. If we thought Harper hated Toronto, we have very little doubt now.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

What happened was the fault of hoodlums hell bent on the thrill of violence and confrontation. Period, full stop.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

really??

Personally it's just soooooo incredibly shocking there were violent protesters causing crap. I've never seen this before!!! Ever!

Who'da thunk it.

over and out.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> really??
> 
> Personally it's just soooooo incredibly shocking there were violent protesters causing crap. I've never seen this before!!! Ever!
> 
> ...


Duh, that's why they were prepared for it. If it weren't for the hoodlums, none of the security measures would be necessary. It is interesting how you seem to want to skew the blame to anyone other than those who actually commit the acts. With your penchant for confrontation, I'm surprised you weren't there... or were you?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

no, I was at the hospital visiting my mother who just had heart surgery. She's hanging on to life by a thread.

I just don't get people who act so surprised this happened. Like I said, hold somewhere where it makes it impossible for these jerks to do their crap, and cause hard working people who didn't want tis crap in their backyards loss of property and income.

Apparently this is hard to comprehend. Easy to mouth off when it isn't -your- studio full of expensive equipment you worked hard for was a few hundred feet from cop cars getting torched and full on property damage occurred.

WTF did we think was going to happen???


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sorry to hear about your Mom, having lost both my parents I know what these times are like. Best of luck to your Mom and I hope she makes a full recovery and my sympathies to you in what I know in a very trying time.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> sure as hell ain't our fault. But somehow we have to put up with it.
> 
> Absolutely truly, the most brainless thing ever to hold this in downtown toronto. If we thought Harper hated Toronto, we have very little doubt now.


Very Machiavellian, but the thought of Harper punishing Toronto with the g20 for no votes did cross my mind.:lmao:

Another think is that Canadian anarchists can't even put on a good riot...what a bunch of losers. Looked like a Sunday walk in the park.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

kps said:


> Very Machiavellian, but the thought of Harper punishing Toronto with the g20 for no votes did cross my mind.:lmao:
> 
> Another think is that Canadian anarchists can't even put on a good riot...what a bunch of losers. Looked like a Sunday walk in the park.


Those aren't Canadians in TO - real Canadians riot over hockey games


----------



## zlinger (Aug 28, 2007)

These punkass "anarchists" are cowards for not showing their face in public. Probably the same breed of losers who tried to disrupt the Vancouver Olympics.

I don't have a problem with the police rounding them up after a few rounds of rubber bullets with batons as needed. Plus an arrest and charge for criminal offences.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

kps said:


> Very Machiavellian, but the thought of Harper punishing Toronto with the g20 for no votes did cross my mind.


+ 1

What has he got to lose?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Forming the next government...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

screature said:


> Forming the next government...


Trust me, Toronto will not be the deciding factor.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SoyMac said:


> Is everyone here _SURE_ the damage was done by "protesters"?


+1 Thanks for the history lesson. We too often forget that the state security apparatus sometimes does unethical / illegal things to justify its existence.

That said... IF these were people who feel they have a legitimate grievance, their methods leave a lot to be desired. It achieves nothing. This leads one to wonder about their true identities...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kps said:


> Trust me, Toronto will not be the deciding factor.


Every riding counts.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> +1 Thanks for the history lesson. We too often forget that the state security apparatus sometimes does unethical / illegal things to justify its existence.
> 
> That said... IF these were people who feel they have a legitimate grievance, their methods leave a lot to be desired. It achieves nothing. T*his leads one to wonder about their true identities...*


Their identities are well known. Professional **** disturbers and promoters of violence and hatred. They don't mean to accomplish anything other than glorifying their egos and their misplaced ideals and methods. All in the hopes of getting some "air time" if they are lucky and cause enough **** and damage. The dregs of society in other-words... no, their identities are very well know indeed.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

CubaMark said:


> +1 Thanks for the history lesson. We too often forget that the state security apparatus sometimes does unethical / illegal things to justify its existence.
> 
> That said... IF these were people who feel they have a legitimate grievance, their methods leave a lot to be desired. It achieves nothing. This leads one to wonder about their true identities...


Unlike Montebello, the evidence isn't quite as cut and dry.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> sure as hell ain't our fault. But somehow we have to put up with it.
> 
> Absolutely truly, the most brainless thing ever to hold this in downtown toronto. If we thought Harper hated Toronto, we have very little doubt now.


You have clarified far more than you will ever realize.

Thank you...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> What happened was the fault of hoodlums hell bent on the thrill of violence and confrontation. Period, full stop.


everyone knew this would happen. no matter how much money you throw at security you couldn't stop it. it was ALWAYS a lose / lose situation by holding it in toronto.

Our leaders are supposed to lead. look at facts and make informed decisions. They did none of that by choosing toronto. IMO blaming rioters for showing up at the G20 is the same as blaming rain clouds for showing up at a picnic held in monsoon season. it's going to happen. smarten up and think and plan accordingly.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

screature said:


> Their identities are well known. Professional **** disturbers and promoters of violence and hatred. They don't mean to accomplish anything other than glorifying their egos and their misplaced ideals and methods. All in the hopes of getting some "air time" if they are lucky and cause enough **** and damage. The dregs of society in other-words... no, their identities are very well know indeed.


+1
Yeeees... and most of them very likely on some form of government social programme, assistance or grant. Kind of ironic, but not unexpected.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

groovetube said:


> sure as hell ain't our fault. But somehow we have to put up with it.
> 
> Absolutely truly, the most brainless thing ever to hold this in downtown toronto. If we thought Harper hated Toronto, we have very little doubt now.




oh god, just need another excuse to hate Harper....go ahead and vote a liberal back in....look what mcguinty keeps giving to you from behind on top of an already expensive province to live in....HST...


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

zlinger said:


> These punkass "anarchists" are cowards for not showing their face in public. Probably the same breed of losers who tried to disrupt the Vancouver Olympics.
> 
> I don't have a problem with the police rounding them up after a few rounds of rubber bullets with batons as needed. Plus an arrest and charge for criminal offences.


They are people with no life, no jobs, no self worth and are causing riots because they have nothing else to do or live for....


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Interesting post from Judy Rebick on her blog. The cynic in me had pretty much come to the same conclusion about why the police didn't do anything to stop the vandalism.

Toronto is burning! Or is it? | Transforming Power


----------



## maxipad (Jun 3, 2010)

The cops were no different, they were doing sleazy and illegal things as well. Did you see that little 4ft wimp cop all dressed up in gear and yelling at some poor kid who tried to ask a question. I also watched them run out in groups of 5 and attack people and arrest them, the last time I checked in this country pigs are supposed to say you are under arrest and then if you refuse it they can use force, but what the hell is with 5 cops running out and taking down some student for no reason who didn't refuse arrest in the first place. Where has the arrest process gone too. The G20 just showed that the cops and protesters aren't no different.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> sure as hell ain't our fault. But somehow we have to put up with it.


Maybe if people of your political persuasion had a little more civility this wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

maxipad said:


> The cops were no different, they were doing sleazy and illegal things as well. Did you see that little 4ft wimp cop all dressed up in gear and yelling at some poor kid who tried to ask a question. I also watched them run out in groups of 5 and attack people and arrest them, the last time I checked in this country pigs are supposed to say you are under arrest and then if you refuse it they can use force, but what the hell is with 5 cops running out and taking down some student for no reason who didn't refuse arrest in the first place. Where has the arrest process gone too. The G20 just showed that the cops and protesters aren't no different.


First let me be perfectly clear. Cops are NOT pigs. They are ordinary Canadians with families and wives and kids just like any other. None of them even want to be there, but it's their job. My father and uncle were both police officers and they would simply shake their heads at your immature comments.

It has been well known for months now that anyone without business in that area would be arrested and if they were stupid enough to go there, they deserve to be arrested.

One day you will need a cop and you will learn that they are indeed there to protect you and yours.

If you don't want confrontation and violence, stay the hell out of the area and all will be well. The goons that start all this crap are the sole reason for the outcome. Anyone from outside Canada who is arrested should be banned from ever returning. Any Canadian arrested should hang their heads in shame.

There are many ways to voice your objections to policy without violence. It has no place in a civilized society.


----------



## maxipad (Jun 3, 2010)

I disagree, I come from Toronto, you come from the sticks. The cops here are pigs, don't you watch TV, they even made a prime time show about cops beings pigs.

Also your comment about staying out of the area is silly. That is a designated protest area, if it didn't exist our country would be called China. How do you think we got to where we are today. It's just a cause you can't relate to because you're and old man in the sticks, I bet if the summit was about wiping out the prairies and turning farmers in to auto worker you would be protesting as well. 

No offense to your family.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I spent more time in Toronto than I care to remember and lived in SW ON for eight years. And for the record, Edmonton is hardly "the sticks". It is comments like those that tell the tale of your life's experience.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

SINC said:


> First let me be perfectly clear. Cops are NOT pigs. They are ordinary Canadians with families and wives and kids just like any other. None of them even want to be there, but it's their job. My father and uncle were both police officers and they would simply shake their heads at your immature comments.
> 
> It has been well known for months now that anyone without business in that area would be arrested and if they were stupid enough to go there, they deserve to be arrested.
> 
> ...


Well said. As far as I'm concerned, the police didn't do enough to prevent the looting and vandalism yesterday. Anyone who didn't disperse when ordered should have been arrested on the spot.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

maxipad said:


> You must be the forum clown. Every post I took part in you followed up with something stupid and then you always take it to personal insults , like my life experience. What would an old man like you possibly know about my life experience.
> 
> What a fool you are.


Personal attacks are frowned upon on ehMac. I didn't get personal, I simply stated that your level of experience doesn't reflect maturity.

You on the other hand in the post above called me a fool. I am far from that and over 40 years of direct media experience would serve to prove it.

Now, who is the fool?

Reminds me of a sign I saw recently:


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Paddy said:


> Interesting post from Judy Rebick on her blog. The cynic in me had pretty much come to the same conclusion about why the police didn't do anything to stop the vandalism.
> 
> Toronto is burning! Or is it? | Transforming Power


There was a report yesterday that basically said that the police were told to back-off in order to not incite those not participating in the black bloc tactics. If true, I'm not sure it was the right approach.

I on the other hand, wouldn't let the protesters get as far as they did.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

> I think the others just tend to ignore you because they know what you're like.


Maxipad, your disrespect to SINC is not appreciated. ehMac is not the place for name-calling and rudeness. SINC is a long-time and well-respected member of this forum. We may not always agree with each other politically or otherwise on this forum, but that is no reason to sink to the level of name calling and ad hominem attacks.


----------



## maxipad (Jun 3, 2010)

kps said:


> There was a report yesterday that basically said that the police were told to back-off in order to not incite those not participating in the black bloc tactics. If true, I'm not sure it was the right approach.
> 
> I on the other hand, wouldn't let the protesters get as far as they did.



What you see on the TV and the web is far from what really happened. The cops screwed up and abandoned their areas and when people moved in to the open area the cops got nasty. It was a failure on the part of the police.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

Anyone wondering how this could have happened needs to read about the "Miami Model".

Porter: When police stick to phony script - thestar.com


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SoyMac said:


> Is everyone here _SURE_ the damage was done by "protesters"?
> 
> We might want to remember recent history:
> 
> ...


Hmmm, the conspiracy theory. Interesting that no one has commented on this so far. Ralph Klein was infamous for giving the union members the finger _just before_ the cameras were turned on to capture the trade union's boisterous reaction. It's certainly not inconceivable that the organizers of these summits _need_ protesters to make themselves seem civilized.


----------



## spiffychristian (Mar 17, 2008)

.


----------



## maxipad (Jun 3, 2010)

fjnmusic said:


> Hmmm, the conspiracy theory. Interesting that no one has commented on this so far. Ralph Klein was infamous for giving the union members the finger _just before_ the cameras were turned on to capture the trade union's boisterous reaction. It's certainly not inconceivable that the organizers of these summits _need_ protesters to make themselves seem civilized.



I commented on it a couple of times. Unfortunately SINC ratted out the posts which were slamming his beloved cops and they got removed by his buddy.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

maxipad said:


> I commented on it a couple of times. Unfortunately SINC ratted out the posts which were slamming his beloved cops and they got removed by his buddy.


More conspiracy! The plot thickens. :heybaby:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

maxipad said:


> I commented on it a couple of times. Unfortunately SINC ratted out the posts which were slamming his beloved cops and they got removed by his buddy.


SINC had nothing to do with it. I flagged some of the posts as violations of the EhMac terms of membership. The EhMac community at large has an interest in maintaining civil discourse here.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Hmmm, the conspiracy theory. Interesting that no one has commented on this so far. Ralph Klein was infamous for giving the union members the finger _just before_ the cameras were turned on to capture the trade union's boisterous reaction. It's certainly not inconceivable that the organizers of these summits _need_ protesters to make themselves seem civilized.


Absolutely, and if they're acting peacefully, dress in black and start a riot. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, this isn't a conspiracy theory, it's fact.

Who exactly is more orderly, peaceful and civil here anyway?


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

I have many questions about how things unfolded this past weekend. 

#1 All last week the media was interviewing various group leaders about the upcoming protests. Not one would denounce violence if things should get out of hand. Kind of made me think... um...

#2 I've been involved in numerous organized protests over the years. They were conducted in a set pattern after consultation with city and police. We didn't try to deviate. No one tried to antagonize police and in turn we were left alone. We got our point across in a peaceful fashion. 

#3 Syd Ryan was told that there would be some infiltrators within the large labour group. Supposedly there were 300 marshals assigned to keep things orderly. For the most part they did a fine job. I do question why some of the protestors decided to deviate from the planned route and provoke trouble. These people became human shields for those hoodlums. Once they realized what was happening why didn't they do something? I saw one incident where a half dozen CAW looking fellas watched while a criminal attempted to smash a window with a stick. They were grinning their heads off and snapping pictures. I wonder if these are the same kind of cowards who would stand by and watch someone being beaten. Shame on you and shame on those who decided to break away from the peaceful organized group. Because of you idiots no one got to hear the messages from others.

#4 Bill Blair is a total loser. We should have known with his kid glove reaction to the Tamil protests that he couldn't handle the job at hand this weekend. The tear gas and rubber bullets should have come out right at the first sign of trouble Saturday. 

#5 Last evening's display at Queen and Spadina was disgusting. I have no problem with the round up but I have a SERIOUS problem with the way it was handled after. There is no excuse why so many had to stand in the rain for hours without some kind of questioning and process. The timeline was totally unacceptable and heads should roll. I have cut the police a lot of slack knowing the difficult job at hand. They get zero endorsement for what occurred last evening. I'm totally disgusted at the person who made this operational decision. They should be fired.

#6 Kudos to all those who participated and kept to their peaceful agenda.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I believe the cop cars, regardless of their not inconsiderable value, were sacrificed on the altar of expediency. Most of the stores whose windows were smashed in are likely insured up the wazoo, too. Relative to the money spent on whole deal, the vandalism and damage is absurdly minute. It was permitted because of its immense and immediate media value. The sight of a cop car burning in downtown COTU served to justify a one billion-plus price tag for this global event. I don't believe that the cops did not interfere with property damage because they were afraid of inciting the black bloc faction. I never saw any fear in any of the cops' faces - I saw alertness and expectation, even boredom sometimes - but not fear. There was more than enough cops, guns, tear gas and sound cannons to take on two or three hundred of these dudes... no, they were leashed by the powers that be. Had black bloc kids been isolated and surrounded by the cops, there would have been no damage - and no immediate payoff, either. I'm sure some of the security forces were upset that they could not do their jobs to the fullest extent, either. Someone above them was pulling strings.

Interesting... yesterday afternoon, after I had been checking out some of the weird street scenes in my own 'hood, I went further east to meet some friends at a bar to catch some soccer. One of our party was a Parisian who's been working here in town in the film industry... his take was interesting... he more or less shrugged at the media-saturated, heavily used images of the burning cars - in France they burn 15 or 16 at a time, he said, smiling. Funny the yardsticks we use, and the things we get used to.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

My take on the whole deal is this...

Being in the downtown core all week and seeing the overwhelming police presence standing around and twiddling their thumbs, I got the impression that they were not only on the lookout for trouble, they were almost looking for it. They were very intimidating in their riot gear, and their numbers only gave the impression that trouble was expected, if not welcomed.

The right to protest is our right. Officials had erected fences and concrete barricades blocks away from the convention center, yet protesters were constantly forced well north of that area. What is the point of a protest if you cant get close to the people who need to hear your message? Again, protesters became frustrated as their rights were denied.

Violence and vandalism is unacceptable. The people that were participating in this should have been the ones that the police focused on. The crowds were on a whole, well behaved, it was a few bad apples that ruined it for everyone. This should have been expected however, and these are the people that should have been targeted. Police should have become friends of the "mass", then they would not have had an issue in dealing with the bad element within it. These hoodlums use the police oppression as their excuse to escalate violence, if you take away the oppressive tactics, you take away the excuse for violence.

Lastly, there was no reason whatsoever to have the G20 in a city like Toronto. The damage that was incurred was minuscule when compared to the overall cost of the event. Stupid stupid stupid.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Thing is this: the cops in riot gear are _supposed_ to look intimidating. That's entirely deliberate. It's not a picnic they're expecting. Beyond being protected with sheilding and armor, they're intent on letting would-be crap disturbers know that, should they get up to their usual shenanigans, there will be consequences. If they didn't look threatening, if the optics were kinder and gentler, more idiots would take idiotic liberties with the law.

Moreover, wanting to get close to 'the people that matter' may be a salutary thing, but it's entirely unrealistic. These are world leaders under heavy armed guard, saddled with scores of tight deadlines. Like it or not, they are very well insulated from nasty optics like unruly crowds. Nor are they much interested, I imagine, in what the rabble in the street are chanting over. There are other ways to send messages. Expecting the people at the very centre of the G20 to be much interested in hearing what a seething mass of people want is silly. They came here to talk to one another, not to talk to you or I... that should be abundantly clear by now. No photo ops with a crowd of protesters- too great a security risk, thanks very much.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Max said:


> I believe the cop cars, regardless of their not inconsiderable value, were sacrificed on the altar of expediency. Most of the stores whose windows were smashed in are likely insured up the wazoo, too. .


Prior to the summit, I heard a radio interview with a shopkeeper who was lamenting the fact that his insurance company informed him that should a riot breakout during the G20 he was SOL and they would not pay for any damages. 

I think perhaps the shopkeepers should do a black bloc on the insurance companies.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Perhaps they should! Pity the shopkeepers, then. Perhaps they should be demanding of the authorities why the police were held back while a couple hundred people went hooliganistic.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

andreww said:


> The right to protest is our right. Officials had erected fences and concrete barricades blocks away from the convention center, yet protesters were constantly forced well north of that area. What is the point of a protest if you cant get close to the people who need to hear your message? Again, protesters became frustrated as their rights were denied.


Their right to protest invisibly a few blocks closer to people behind closed doors who couldn't give a rat's ass about them and their various causes?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Perhaps andreww is hoping that the G20 honchos might have heard the ever so faint din of an unhappy crowd?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Perhaps andreww is hoping that the G20 honchos might have heard the ever so faint din of an unhappy crowd?


At the point where some group marching against violence against transgendered something or other commandeered a gas station I lost all hope. Did they think the world leaders were beating up on Hedy Joe Star behind closed doors? A little focus, please.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Paddy said:


> Interesting post from Judy Rebick on her blog. The cynic in me had pretty much come to the same conclusion about why the police didn't do anything to stop the vandalism.
> 
> Toronto is burning! Or is it? | Transforming Power


Judy Rebick...? LOL like her political agenda isn't well known. Just because she was a witness doesn't mean she "knows" why things happened the way they did. Remember she sees the world through rose (pink) coloured glasses.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> Thing is this: the cops in riot gear are _supposed_ to look intimidating. That's entirely deliberate. It's not a picnic they're expecting. Beyond being protected with sheilding and armor, they're intent on letting would-be crap disturbers know that, should they get up to their usual shenanigans, there will be consequences. If they didn't look threatening, if the optics were kinder and gentler, more idiots would take idiotic liberties with the law.
> 
> Moreover, wanting to get close to 'the people that matter' may be a salutary thing, but it's entirely unrealistic. These are world leaders under heavy armed guard, saddled with scores of tight deadlines. Like it or not, they are very well insulated from nasty optics like unruly crowds. Nor are they much interested, I imagine, in what the rabble in the street are chanting over. There are other ways to send messages. Expecting the people at the very centre of the G20 to be much interested in hearing what a seething mass of people want is silly. They came here to talk to one another, not to talk to you or I... that should be abundantly clear by now. No photo ops with a crowd of protesters- too great a security risk, thanks very much.


+1 Exactly. Great post Max.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Let's have these summits via Skype, and protesters can put up Facebook pages.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I just listened to Jian Gomeshi on Q convening a panel involving John Tory, Judy Rebick and John Cruikshank ... Rebick tried to make the point that peaceful demonstrators were barely covered (which is abundantly true, especially where it regards television coverage), whereas the violent stuff was given huge and repeated priority - and the other guys came back with the standard adage that inflammatory and violent stuff sells papers, puts bums in seats. Rebick said that this has to change. Good luck with that!

We are a people addicted to fast jolts and sensationalism. Peaceful stuff doesn't cut it - it's deemed boring, too slow, too free of conflict. The media, which we all tend to want to blame, usually responds with material they know their audiences are seeking, whether they would admit to it or not. After all, their mission is to get the ratings so that their advertising revenues are high. Even the CBC plays the ratings game in this manner. Peaceful stuff doesn't cut it in this milieu unless it's really dramatic and exceedingly unusual... like a bloody huge sit-in or opt-out of the usual circus proceedings.

It's a vicious circle.

______________________

Yesterday, maybe mid-afternoon, the standard figure given for arrests was 500 (I'm going by the Globe's website and by CBC radio). A couple of hours later it was 600. This morning, as I'm doing my exercises and listening to the news, it's roughly 900. One of the things the panel seemed to generally agree on was that this matter - the number of people arrested - is being given more attention by the international press than it is at home. Rebick angrily claimed that the local and national media went along with the police and gave them free rein. I think there is something to her claim. She may indeed be a veteran lefty but she's not an idiot either. She went on to say that this event gave Toronto specifically, and Canada in general, a black eye as far as the world is concerned. I rather doubt this myself and consider that fear delusional and melodramatic. Fact is, I don't think the world really gives a damn. For that matter, these G summits appear to be a whole lot of nothing going on. I have to wonder how many more of them will happen, given their track record of solid accomplishments.

It will be interesting to see how many of those arrested and subsequently detained in those purpose-built pens down the street from my digs will be charged.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> We are a people addicted to fast jolts and sensationalism. Peaceful stuff doesn't cut it - it's deemed boring, too slow, too free of conflict.


Free air time for peaceful lefties!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

As long as peaceful righties get the same deal, natch.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> As long as peaceful righties get the same deal, natch.


We need a 24-hour peaceful protest channel that people can ignore as they choose.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Funded by the man!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Funded by the man!


Max, have you ever noticed how The Man is always putting us down?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Some people find The Man putting them down pretty hot.

Riot cop at Queen/Spadina - m4m


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Some people find The Man putting them down pretty hot.
> 
> Riot cop at Queen/Spadina - m4m


I think it's a trick. This is really a woman posing as a male homosexual.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

The thing is, what do these protesters realistically hope to accomplish? To change the leaders minds and their agendas? If it is then their tactics have been shown, time and time again, overwhelmingly to be a failure. But the fact is their intentions are not to affect change at all, but merely to create an opportunity for a media frenzy which the media is only too happy to provide them with. 

Protests can certainly have their place when it comes to local, provincial or even national issues, but to think that locally staged protests when dealing with matters that are international in nature will accomplish anything is politically naive in the extreme.

The vast majority of the G8/20 nations are democracies and have in place a system to oust their leaders when they don't like the direction they are taking their respective countries. One's vote still remains the most powerful and effective means of "protest" available to the individual. The fact is that whether they like it or not the protesters who show up to these anti G8/G20 rallies are in the vast minority and they don't like it. They couldn't sway the majority of their own population to their way of thinking during elections and so now they will use whatever means that is available to them to make their voice heard and get attention and if that means resorting to violence and anarchy, so be it. This is not to say that all the protesters act in such a manner but they are most certainly sympathetic to them as they gain attention to their cause even if it is for the wrong reason. It is better to be infamous than invisible.

In the end these protests accomplish nothing other than the spectacle that they are intended to create. In civilized democracies we should not tolerate or be sympathetic to such tactics and behaviour. In situations such as these with past histories of mob related violence, even the "peaceful" protesters are culpable simply through their attendance as numbers merely feed the mob mentality.

If these people really want to change things then become active in the political process at the decision making level, a power which each and everyone of have in a democracy, it starts by getting up off of your ass and going to a polling station, standing in line and marking an X beside the name of the candidate of your choice... but for far too many that is too boring and not half as exciting as participating in a mob scene that in the end will accomplish nothing.


----------



## maxipad (Jun 3, 2010)

screature said:


> The thing is, what do these protesters realistically hope to accomplish? To change the leaders minds and their agendas? If it is then their tactics have been shown, time and time again, overwhelmingly to be a failure. But the fact is their intentions are not to affect change at all, but merely to create an opportunity for a media frenzy which the media is only too happy to provide them with.
> 
> Protests can certainly have their place when it comes to local, provincial or even national issues, but to think that locally staged protests when dealing with matters that are international in nature will accomplish anything is politically naive in the extreme.
> 
> ...



At the very least it brings awareness. I don't how you can say protesting doesn't accomplish anything. Everything we have today is from some sort of protest.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

maxipad said:


> At the very least it brings awareness. I don't how you can say protesting doesn't accomplish anything. Everything we have today is from some sort of protest.


I don't know about that... when you have dozens and dozens of protests going on about everything under the sun, they all kind of blur together.

I am aware that no matter what decisions are made or not made, it will be terrible for someone and there will be a protest. It does not take a demonstration to bring that about.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

maxipad said:


> At the very least it brings awareness. I don't how you can say protesting doesn't accomplish anything. Everything we have today is from some sort of protest.


Awareness? You would have to be dead not to be aware. 



maxipad said:


> I don't how you can say protesting doesn't accomplish anything.


You really should read...



screature said:


> Protests can certainly have their place when it comes to local, provincial or even national issues, but to think that locally staged protests when dealing with matters that are international in nature will accomplish anything is politically naive in the extreme.


These protests of the G8/20 meetings *specifically* accomplish nothing.



> Everything we have today is from some sort of protest.


You just solved the reason for climate change... protest. Oh, and the industrial revolution, technology, medicine, health care, cancer, putting men on the moon, etc., etc., etc.... all came about because of protest. Thanks for educating me.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> You just solved the reason for climate change... protest. Oh, and the industrial revolution, *technology*, medicine, health care, cancer, putting men on the moon, etc., etc., etc.... all came about because of protest. Thanks for educating me.


But what about the Luddites?...oh...never mind...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> But what about the Luddites?...oh...never mind...


Looks like they lost and didn't accomplish anything either.


----------



## maxipad (Jun 3, 2010)

The protest achieved one thing for sure. The G20 will not be coming to Toronto anytime soon.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

maxipad said:


> The protest achieved one thing for sure. The G20 will not be coming to Toronto anytime soon.


Uh, it wasn't going to anyway.

The G20 summit is supposed to rotate among member countries. So the next time it comes to Canada will be 10 years from now.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

adagio said:


> #5 Last evening's display at Queen and Spadina was disgusting. I have no problem with the round up but I have a SERIOUS problem with the way it was handled after. There is no excuse why so many had to stand in the rain for hours without some kind of questioning and process. The timeline was totally unacceptable and heads should roll. I have cut the police a lot of slack knowing the difficult job at hand. They get zero endorsement for what occurred last evening. I'm totally disgusted at the person who made this operational decision. They should be fired.
> .


+1

I know a few people that were detained for no reason. This isn't the Canada I thought we lived in. I really do hope there's accountability for this.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

I think this article is BANG ON :

G20 editorial: Brutal spectacle failed a city and its people - thestar.com


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

I'm saddened by the detention and arrest of the Forest Hill (Tony Toronto area) couple. He is an internet security pro and she's an artist. The story was covered in the Globe and Mail last week.

I have little doubt that agent provocateurs were at least partially responsible for much of the damage done.

My real beef is that our media, including the CBC, focused on the violence without exploring the reasons for protest. There are many.

Ah, life in 2010.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

i-rui said:


> I think this article is BANG ON :
> 
> G20 editorial: Brutal spectacle failed a city and its people - thestar.com


Couldn't agree more, i-rui. It was an excellent editorial.

As for the poor shopkeepers, I'm a little surprised that their insurance doesn't cover what is essentially vandalism. Vandalism and damage caused by riots IS covered under a standard homeowner's policy and I'd find it odd if it was excluded from a normal small business property policy. Or maybe the insurance companies have decided to label this terrorism (which is not covered) since terrorism, as defined by my insurance company is _"an ideologically motivated unlawful act or acts, including but not limited to the sue of violence or force or threat of violence or force, committed by or on behalf of any group(s), organization(s) or government(s) for the purpose of influencing any government or instilling fear in the public or a section of the public."_


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> I think this article is BANG ON :
> 
> G20 editorial: Brutal spectacle failed a city and its people - thestar.com





Paddy said:


> Couldn't agree more, i-rui. It was an excellent editorial.
> 
> As for the poor shopkeepers, I'm a little surprised that their insurance doesn't cover what is essentially vandalism. Vandalism and damage caused by riots IS covered under a standard homeowner's policy and I'd find it odd if it was excluded from a normal small business property policy. Or maybe the insurance companies have decided to label this terrorism (which is not covered) since terrorism, as defined by my insurance company is _"an ideologically motivated unlawful act or acts, including but not limited to the sue of violence or force or threat of violence or force, committed by or on behalf of any group(s), organization(s) or government(s) for the purpose of influencing any government or instilling fear in the public or a section of the public."_


Right so the lesson learned is, bow to the anarchists and near-do-wells of the world and let them determine where or where not a meeting of international leaders should be held. 

Makes sense.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

screature said:


> Right so the lesson learned is, bow to the anarchists and near-do-wells of the world and let them determine where or where not a meeting of international leaders should be held.
> 
> Makes sense.


And your solution to this is....? I'm all ears.

I've yet to meet a fellow Torontonian who HASN'T questioned the wisdom of holding these sorts of meetings in the middle of a major city like Toronto, IF the only way to secure the city seems to be completely shutting it down. We were told that holding the G20 meetings here was an "opportunity to show off Toronto" which is utterly absurd, given the circumstances. 

If the main aim of these meetings is to bring the leaders together for face to face discussions, in a safe environment, a major urban center is really not the ideal place, is it? Somewhere relatively isolated and easily secured is far more appropriate, given the high security demands of these meetings.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Paddy said:


> And your solution to this is....? I'm all ears.
> 
> I've yet to meet a fellow Torontonian who HASN'T questioned the wisdom of holding these sorts of meetings in the middle of a major city like Toronto, IF the only way to secure the city seems to be completely shutting it down. We were told that holding the G20 meetings here was an "opportunity to show off Toronto" which is utterly absurd, given the circumstances.
> 
> If the main aim of these meetings is to bring the leaders together for face to face discussions, in a safe environment, a major urban center is really not the ideal place, is it? Somewhere relatively isolated and easily secured is far more appropriate, given the high security demands of these meetings.


Really? London isn't a major city? Maybe the people you talk to need to do their homework.

The solution is to move forward regardless and not let the bastards win. Wherever the leaders go the anarchists and professional s**t disturbers will *always* follow/protest because that is what they do, to accommodate them (by hiding) is to admit defeat.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

jimbotelecom said:


> My real beef is that our media, including the CBC, focused on the violence without exploring the reasons for protest. There are many.


Ahh, but that would involve not one but a series of answers and layers of complexity. Our mediaverse loathes complexity of message. The 15 second sound bite rules. In such an environment, there's no room for sophistication or elaboration. It's nature is far more conducive to quick framing and an abysmally sterile reduction of complex issues to short, terse phrases and partisan sniping.


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

screature said:


> Right so the lesson learned is, bow to the anarchists and near-do-wells of the world and let them determine where or where not a meeting of international leaders should be held.
> 
> Makes sense.


Damned straight. I don't know how you can paint those anarchists with the same brush though. 99% of the people their were honest peaceful citizens, the remaining 1% were anarchists. What kind of world do we live in where we will spend 1.1 Billion dollars to bring 20 people together to discuss amongst other things, how to lower their national debts. Utterly ridiculous! These meetings could easily be held via video conference at a cost of nothing, there is no reason to even have them.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Right so the lesson learned is, bow to the anarchists and near-do-wells of the world and let them determine where or where not a meeting of international leaders should be held.
> 
> Makes sense.


It's nothing to do with the anarchists and ne'er-do-wells, though that doesn't help.

Downtown Toronto was shut down for 5 days. I don't care if there was NO damage, the citizens of Toronto have been expensively inconvenienced for absolutely no benefit. 

This is a vibrant, thriving city where people actually live and use their downtown. You can't just shut it down and think people would be okay with that.

Hey, if you really don't want to bow down to the anarchists, don't have any security. Not possible? Okay, then move the summit to somewhere less expensive to secure, where fewer people will be inconvenienced by it, and where those who have to put up with this might possible get some benefit for their trouble.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

andreww said:


> Damned straight. I don't know how you can paint those anarchists with the same brush though. 99% of the people their were honest peaceful citizens, the remaining 1% were anarchists. What kind of world do we live in where we will spend 1.1 Billion dollars to bring 20 people together to discuss amongst other things, how to lower their national debts. Utterly ridiculous! *These meetings could easily be held via video conference at a cost of nothing, there is no reason to even have them.*


No they couldn't. Why do you think video conferencing has not taken off the way some people think it could, because nothing takes the place of meeting face to face. Only those with little experience in negotiations would think otherwise.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Interesting contrasts: the G8 in Huntsville vs the G20 in Toronto.

Huntsville a protest-free zone - The Globe and Mail

In Huntsville, the G8 leaders found a gracious host - The Globe and Mail


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> It's nothing to do with the anarchists and ne'er-do-wells, though that doesn't help.
> 
> Downtown Toronto was shut down for 5 days. I don't care if there was NO damage, the citizens of Toronto have been expensively inconvenienced for absolutely no benefit.
> 
> ...


I.e. It is all good as long as it is not in my backyard... gotcha.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> I.e. It is all good as long as it is not in my backyard... gotcha.


Not so much... read the second article I posted.

Huntsville seems pretty happy to have the G8, and the money put into the city in preparation will benefit the town.

Why not hold it in a city that actually wants it?

Quote:


> Its (Huntsville's) outlook has already brightened considerably as millions of federal dollars were used to repave roads, build a new community centre, improve hydro lines and even attract the University of Waterloo to house a campus in town.





> The G8 summit may have brought some annoyances to their peaceful lives, but many couldn’t help but see a future benefit, especially with the infrastructure money spent


Tell me there's no other town in Canada who couldn't have used a similar boost.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sure Huntsville liked it. It's a much smaller event. They also got a ton of added benefits - the entire area profited with infrastructure upgrades that will last well beyond the triggering event. All of us who pay taxes will be covering for those expenditures, on top of the astronomical COTU expenses.

As well, there simply aren't the accommodations for protester/demonstrators/gawkers/mediapeeps that a major urban centre can provide. So they don't appear in anywhere near the same numbers. Thus the aggravation factor of heavy police presence, traffic snarls and disruptions of normal cottage country life, etc. just isn't going to be as severe - no way, no how.

A bit like comparing apples and dump trucks, methinks.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Hey, if screature is so in favour, maybe we should have had it in Ottawa instead?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Max said:


> Ahh, but that would involve not one but a series of answers and layers of complexity. Our mediaverse loathes complexity of message. The 15 second sound bite rules. In such an environment, there's no room for sophistication or elaboration. It's nature is far more conducive to quick framing and an abysmally sterile reduction of complex issues to short, terse phrases and partisan sniping.


Agreed. Nonetheless I expect better from the CBC in particular. Modern media are focussed on concision to spoon feed their audiences.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Agreed, Sonal. 

As for London...what? You think that was a peaceful, violence free summit, Screature?

Protests at the G20 summit - The Big Picture - Boston.com

More editorials (from the left and the more conservative...)

Little to show for G20 security bill | Colin Horgan | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Toronto G20 summit too intrusive



> But my suggestion that government planners were responsible for the escalating costs of the Toronto summit provoked a few readers to argue it wasn't the Harper government's fault that the price tag was so high. "Don't you understand that the protesters' threat to use violence is the reason," one e-mailer insisted.
> 
> And to some extent, he's correct. But who put the summit within the protesters' reach? Given that the angry, unhinged socialists who see it as great sport to disrupt these things find it much easier to acquire supporters and supplies in major cities than they would in some barren wilderness, then those who chose the site are at least partly responsible for its costs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Jimbotelecom: ah but the CBC feels the pressure to get ratings just as keenly. They hate to think that they're in any way irrelevant, hidebound or behind the times. That I can promise you.

They might try and resist the siren song of dumbing it down for the masses but some days I fear it's a steady, progressive erosion.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sonal: Aylmer! Try Aylmer. It's so beautiful there this time of year. I know, they could build a fake lake on the shores of the Ottawa River.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Not so much... read the second article I posted...


Ok, but they booked a venue didn't they? Some people clearly didn't mind. There will always be a multitude of interests to consider and attend to, the point is when you begin to base your decisions on specific interest groups it becomes a slippery slope. Someone will always be upset with a governing body's decision no matter what it it is, at some point decisions must be made and the chips fall where they will.

That being said decisions should not be made based on the will and intent of those who seek to "destroy" you. I have faced many a bully in my life and learned the hard way that the only way to disempower a bully is to confront them. It doesn't mean it is easy or there aren't consequences but the consequences of allowing them to bully you are far worse.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> Sonal: Aylmer! Try Aylmer. It's so beautiful there this time of year. I know, they could build a fake lake on the shores of the Ottawa River.


Aylmer! Well I don't think there is any venue large enough, but if they build one, maybe next time.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Who are these people that didn't mind, aside from the Crown Corporation that owns the Metro Convention Center? I don't recall anyone living in the City of Toronto being asked if we could host the G20 there. 



screature said:


> Ok, but they booked a venue didn't they? Some people clearly didn't mind. There will always be a multitude of interests to consider and attend to, the point is when you begin to base your decisions on specific interest groups it becomes a slippery slope. Someone will always be upset with a governing body's decision no matter what it it is, at some point decisions must be made and the chips fall where they will.
> 
> That being said decisions should not be made based on the will and intent of those who seek to "destroy" you. I have faced many a bully in my life and learned the hard way that the only way to disempower a bully is to confront them. It doesn't mean it is easy or there aren't consequences but the consequences of allowing them to bully you are far worse.


Mine own experience with bullying has taught me differently. Confrontation is one answer among many.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Damn straight, Sonal. Fight or Flight - two valid options. Context is all.

Confrontation works... and yet, confrontation is sometimes just playing into a game where the rules are stacked against you.

Oh well, the lot of us will never agree wholeheartedly on _anything._


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Max said:


> Oh well, the lot of us will never agree wholeheartedly on _anything._


I wholeheartedly agree.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Now you've done it Sonal.

[strides away angrily, cursing up a blue streak]


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

It's not a "NIMBY" thing - it's the sheer cost of the darn thing when held in a place that by its very nature is difficult to secure that bothers me.

It's just insane to spend $833,000 PER MINUTE for the leaders to meet to do...what? Is the benefit worth the cost to the host country? Can you actually say it was $1.2B well spent? (and that figure no doubt doesn't include the damage done by the vandals and thugs AND the 90% reduction in business for most downtown businesses for several days) 

I KNOW that there were some absolutely ludicrous spending decisions associated with this summit (pork barrel spending far, far away from Deerhurst, the fake lake etc.) but the $933M or so spent on security alone is just crazy.

I think Edwards Air Force Base is an excellent suggestion - in the middle of nowhere, built-in security - even if you have to build a fancy hotel/conference center, it's still going to be cheaper, especially if you use it as a permanent G20 site. Why bother rotating hosting? It's not as if the world leaders actually get to SEE anything much of the host location, and it's hardly the point of the conference anyway. Enough of the razzle-dazzle already - it impresses no one.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

Did you read about the huge high def screen they had in the media centre? It was used to stream uncompressed HD live images from various parts of Canada. Apparently it cost $200 a *second* to use. What, they couldn't pop in Planet Earth on BluRay?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Really? London isn't a major city? Maybe the people you talk to need to do their homework.
> 
> The solution is to move forward regardless and not let the bastards win. Wherever the leaders go the anarchists and professional s**t disturbers will *always* follow/protest because that is what they do, to accommodate them (by hiding) is to admit defeat.





screature said:


> Ok, but they booked a venue didn't they? Some people clearly didn't mind. There will always be a multitude of interests to consider and attend to, the point is when you begin to base your decisions on specific interest groups it becomes a slippery slope. Someone will always be upset with a governing body's decision no matter what it it is, at some point decisions must be made and the chips fall where they will.
> 
> That being said decisions should not be made based on the will and intent of those who seek to "destroy" you. I have faced many a bully in my life and learned the hard way that the only way to disempower a bully is to confront them. It doesn't mean it is easy or there aren't consequences but the consequences of allowing them to bully you are far worse.


are you suggesting London was a resounding success? that there wasn't any rioters? in fact, there of course was. and peaceful protesters as well (in fact the police killed one...job well done right?). the only thing Canada did worse then london was waste a billion dollars more on security.

the point is our leaders should adapt to the circumstances. its already been proven that the protesters will show up to these meetings, so any reasonable person would deduce that you should minimize the risk. Canada could've spent 5 billion dollars on security and it wouldn't have changed anything. it was just a stupid decision.

to try and suggest that if we don't hold these meetings in major urban centers that "the anarchists win" is something i'd expect to hear from that fountain of wisdom know as George W. Bush. if the g8 can meet in huntsville and work why couldn't the g20? (or anywhere else that wouldn't waste a ton of tax payer money)

if i was to leave a brand new macbook pro on my lawn unattended, should i be surprised to find it gone in the morning? sure I could lay blame on whoever stole it (and there would be some validity to that) but more importantly i'd have to look in the mirror and question how i could be so incredibly naive to think that it would still be there. it's a reality of the world we live in.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Screature, if it's so important to you to show up the anarchists, I really do hope that they cycle around to Aylmer as a host site while you're still kicking around there. You'll see for yourself how infinitely fun, exciting and rewarding it is!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> ...the point is our leaders should adapt to the circumstances. its already been proven that the protesters will show up to these meetings, so any reasonable person would deduce that you should minimize the risk.


They did this. Sure it came at a cost, was it justified or money well spent? We shall see. Was anyone killed or severely injured? No. The police lost a few vehicles and that was their cost. A few broken windows need to be replaced and yet you blame the government instead of the culprits.



i-rui said:


> to try and suggest that if we don't hold these meetings in major urban centers that "the anarchists win" is something i'd expect to hear from that fountain of wisdom know as George W. Bush. if the g8 can meet in huntsville and work why couldn't the g20? (or anywhere else that wouldn't waste a ton of tax payer money)


The a la George Bush BS is getting pretty old at this point in time don't you think. We should all live in fear and act accordingly because there are bad people out there don't ya know. I think I already know this since going through a full body scan at the airport this last winter. It is the"bad" people that cost us money, it baffles me that you and others here who are intelligent people try and blame the government for the actions of free independent individuals who are hell bent on destruction for the sake of it. Precautions were taken and for the most sake (the sake of saving lives) they were successful. 



i-rui said:


> ...if i was to leave a brand new macbook pro on my lawn unattended, should i be surprised to find it gone in the morning? sure I could lay blame on whoever stole it (and there would be some validity to that) but more importantly i'd have to look in the mirror and question how i could be so incredibly naive to think that it would still be here. it's a reality of the world we live in.


Sorry i-rui I respect you greatly but it is irrelevant IMO. Basically you are suggesting that it is essentially a pragmatic failing of an individual's decision that is makes them culpable in the moral and ethical failing of another individual. This is simply a premise I cannot agree to.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I agree the security costs were crazy and that sending everyone to a remote military base would have been the cheapest and easiest solution. I even suggested it early on.
However, what does this say about our country and its citizens when we can't host world leaders in one of our most cosmopolitan cities? 
It would send a message that we're too frightened of a bunch of A-holes in black ski masks and that we're running for cover. It would say our citizens are such hooligans that we need to hide from them. It would basically say the Anarchists are as powerful as they think they are, feeding their ego's and emboldening them even more. Running for cover would only say, the Anarchists win! I feel bad for people that were victimized by the A-hole protestors but legitimately elected government shouldn't run for cover. We won't be deterred by lawless thugs.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> Screature, if it's so important to you to show up the anarchists, I really do hope that they cycle around to Aylmer as a host site while you're still kicking around there. You'll see for yourself how infinitely fun, exciting and rewarding it is!


I would have expected better from you Max. This isn't even a half decent attempt at a rational argument. This is only another not in my backyard defence and deflection from where the real blame should lie. 

Who is going to be happy about their lives being disrupted for a few days... no one. However, it isn't the end of the world, nor should one take to becoming illogical to justify their disappointment/accreditation of blame.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Next time let Hamilton host. 

Any damage would be an improvement.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> Next time let Hamilton host.
> 
> Any damage would be an improvement.


:lmao: :lmao: :clap:


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> We should all live in fear and act accordingly because there are bad people out there don't ya know. I think I already know this since going through a full body scan at the airport this last winter. It is the"bad" people that cost us money, it baffles me that you and others here who are intelligent people try and blame the government for the actions of free independent individuals who are hell bent on destruction for the sake of it. Precautions were taken and for the most sake (the sake of saving lives) they were successful.


it's not a case of living in fear, it's a case of making wise decisions. if you weigh the cons of holding the g20 in a major urban center (huge cost, huge inconvenience, large protests, more rioters, more vandalism, trampling on citizens human rights) vs the pros (of which i can't think of one that would be SPECIFIC to holding it in a large urban center) i don't see any kind of case for it. holding it in toronto just to show anarchists that "we can" makes no sense. there are times to fight a good fight, but this surely isn't one of them. it proves nothing. it actually underscores many of the anarchists points (that individual freedoms mean nothing in the face of corporate/political power). it's a battle that can't be won, only lost, and at a huge cost.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> it's not a case of living in fear, it's a case of making wise decisions. if you weigh the cons of holding the g20 in a major urban center (huge cost, huge inconvenience, large protests, more rioters, more vandalism, trampling on citizens human rights) vs the pros (of which i can't think of one that would be SPECIFIC to holding it in a large urban center) i don't see any kind of case for it. holding it in toronto just to show anarchists that "we can" makes no sense. there are times to fight a good fight, but this surely isn't one of them. it proves nothing. it actually underscores many of the anarchists points (that individual freedoms mean nothing in the face of corporate/political power). it's a battle that can't be won, only lost, and at a huge cost.


Wise decisions are always dependant upon the intended out come. Is it wise to bow to the will of terrorists and anarchists?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Wise decisions are always dependant upon the intended out come. Is it wise to bow to the will of terrorists and anarchists?


IMO they're actually playing into the anarchists hands by holding it in a large urban center. they didn't go to the G8 for a reason. Their numbers were larger in toronto, transportation is easier, more media coverage, and they can instigate reactions that prove their points.

MY opinion of the police force is MUCH lower as i hear stories from friends who were detained for no reason, and i see a lot of shocking youtube vids of how the police acted. 

As i said before. it's a lose / lose situation. It costs a ton of money, and in the end I think many of the public will actually feel more disillusioned with the authorities.


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

i-rui said:


> IMO they're actually playing into the anarchists hands by holding it in a large urban center. they didn't go to the G8 for a reason. Their numbers were larger in toronto, transportation is easier, more media coverage, and they can instigate reactions that prove their points.
> 
> I think that is a very valid point, if you are going to host one of these thing at least make it difficult for the trouble makers to get there. They could have gone up into the NWT. Maybe the buildings they made could have been used by the Natives that live there after the summit. At least this way it would help rebuild some of their crumbling infrastructure. If we are going to spend a billion dollars maybe it could have a lasting effect. Other than a demolished city.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

DR Hannon said:


> IMO they're actually playing into the anarchists hands by holding it in a large urban center. they didn't go to the G8 for a reason. Their numbers were larger in toronto, transportation is easier, more media coverage, and they can instigate reactions that prove their points.
> 
> I think that is a very valid point, if you are going to host one of these thing at least make it difficult for the trouble makers to get there. They could have gone up into the NWT. Maybe the buildings they made could have been used by the Natives that live there after the summit. At least this way it would help rebuild some of their crumbling infrastructure. If we are going to spend a billion dollars maybe it could have a lasting effect. *Other than a demolished city.*


A little melodramatic don't ya think?

They didn't go to the G8 because there was the G20 to go to. It wouldn't have mattered if the G20 were held in Aylmer the "protesters" would have still been there because it was the "main event".

For those people who want to talk about the pragmatics/wisdom of the decision as to where the summit was to be held it would *have* to be in some place with a major international airport or it would become a logistical and therefore security nightmare. To make it remote to potential protesters also makes it remote for the attendees.

Let's see... I'm organizing an international event for the world's most significant powers/leaders to attend and I have the choice of making things convenient for my friends as well as, regrettably, for my enemies or making it inconvenient for my friends and enemies, which am I going to choose? Hmm... Oh but wait there is another way, I will just make it convenient for my friends to attend and make damn sure my enemies don't even get close to the venue.... I think if I were a world leader hosting the principle leaders of the free world I know which option I would choose.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

screature said:


> I would have expected better from you Max. This isn't even a half decent attempt at a rational argument. This is only another not in my backyard defence and deflection from where the real blame should lie.
> 
> Who is going to be happy about their lives being disrupted for a few days... no one. However, it isn't the end of the world, nor should one take to becoming illogical to justify their disappointment/accreditation of blame.


Guess I should have thrown in a smiley or winky for these humour-challenged days?

_Sigh_

As an aside, please don't expect anything of me, screature; it will save us both some needless grief. Peace out.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Who is going to be happy about their lives being disrupted for a few days... no one. However, it isn't the end of the world, nor should one take to becoming illogical to justify their disappointment/accreditation of blame.


I would be perfectly happy to put up with a few days of disruption if there was something to show for it.

Huntsville and many of the surrounding towns, in preparation for the summit, received a number of improvements that will last well beyond the few days of hassle.

And because we are Toronto, we get....?

MACenstein's Monster has a point... what if they did host it in Hamilton? At least that city would have been arguably bettered for it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> Guess I should have thrown in a smiley or winky for these humour-challenged days?
> 
> _Sigh_
> 
> As an aside, please don't expect anything of me, screature; it will save us both some needless grief. Peace out.


After reading it back I regretted my choice of words and for that I apologize. What I meant though, was that based on your previous postings I have greatly appreciated and respected the demonstration of you considerable intellect and fair mindedness. With the lack of an emoticon it just didn't seem to "measure up" to the quality of most of the other postings I have read by you. That is what I meant and should have said. Nothing to do with you, more to do with me. 

Peace.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> I would be perfectly happy to put up with a few days of disruption if there was something to show for it.
> 
> Huntsville and many of the surrounding towns, in preparation for the summit, received a number of improvements that will last well beyond the few days of hassle.
> 
> ...


Probably so.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> For those people who want to talk about the pragmatics/wisdom of the decision as to where the summit was to be held it would *have* to be in some place with a major international airport or it would become a logistical and therefore security nightmare. To make it remote to potential protesters also makes it remote for the attendees.
> .


why couldn't it be held at a military base with an airfield? They could build a base for less than a billion dollars, and still use it afterwards.

Or fly them into Pearson airport, and then use helicopters to fly them to a secluded location. You could buy a fleet of helicopters for a billion bucks, and still have something to show for it after the summit.

Point is, there are always options. A Major urban centre shouldn't be one of them. It's a waste of money, and there's nothing to show for it after the fact (well, nothing positive).


----------



## DR Hannon (Jan 21, 2007)

screature said:


> A little melodramatic don't ya think?
> 
> They didn't go to the G8 because there was the G20 to go to. It wouldn't have mattered if the G20 were held in Aylmer the "protesters" would have still been there because it was the "main event".
> 
> ...


Using your logic, the UN building would be perfect since it is already designed to house such conferences as this. If it were in one location preparations would be a lot easier to maintain. As for the airport question. Did we not just buy a bunch of flying buses? Also leaders would be able to refuel at Borden. Perhaps a Military base for the next summit. Seems to me that they would be better prepared. It may not be the Ritz, but something has to give, perhaps the Leaders of our nations could be inconvenienced instead of their population. Has anything really been accomplished? Sure we all agree to play nice, but really, two days to save the planet? Come on.

As for making sure that your enemies do not get close there has to be a better option than making part of a city into Fort Knox!!! These things are well advertised, to say "Hey, look at me am I not wonderful!". Putting it in an out of the way place also makes it harder for the reporters to get there. I suppose the photo ops have it.tptptptp


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Screature: s'all good, man. These topics are such that they inflame things all too easily. This being da net, stuff happens which I suspect would not necessarily happen, were we all in a room together, sipping tea or coffee or scotch, or what-evah.

More to the topic at hand: I am becoming increasingly discouraged about these G summits. Their lack of transparency makes me think ill of them and become all too cynical and caustic about their prospects for success. Seems like a very expensive series of grandstanding photo-ops for a bunch of national heads of state. To expect something substantive from these meets looks like a mug's game. The real deals have already been forged, or are about to be forged, in various board rooms and cabinet chambers scattered across the world.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

Pardon if this is just beating a dead horse, but I'm just livid about the $1b bill we were collectively handed during what are already tough times.

I don't care how Ottawa rationalizes the expenditure. WASTE OF MONEY.

As far as I'm concerned these G*'s might as well be held in superman's fortress of solitude. These heads of state are already so blatantly out of touch with their surroundings due to the "security perimeter" I'm not sure what the point of having it within 100K of a city is. Protests go unheard, damage is "inevitable", the rift between local law enforcement and residents can only increase as a result, and the store owners and citizens are forced to pick up the pieces when this juggernaut photo-op comes and goes.

Consider the G8 at Kananaskis, a downright success by all measures compared to this debacle.

"Security costs ballooned to $96.5 million, or one-third of the summit's overall budget." Fortress G8: The G8 Summit in Kananaskis 2002 | Mostly Water (pardon the questionable source).

Otherwise known as less than 1/10th of what Canadians just paid to have one of our cities trashed. Reading up on it, protesters didn't get to within 30 kilometers of the Kananaskis security zone.

I'm sick of the clandestine meetings, made more insulting when they externalize their exorbitant costs on people who are already having a rough time of it. 

I'm proud of Miller for standing up for Toronto but I'm not sure he'll get anywhere:
Miller pushes for compensation, blames Ottawa for G20 chaos - thestar.com

Why are we collectively not making a bigger deal about this? How about making it an election issue. I will not vote for anyone who sees fit to schedule these in an urban zone and acts like it's good for tourism.

Thanks for listening... I'm done now.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

cap10subtext said:


> Why are we collectively not making a bigger deal about this? How about making it an election issue. I will not vote for anyone who sees fit to schedule these in an urban zone and acts like it's good for tourism.


They had to delay Pride for a week for the summit... tell me how that is good for tourism.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

It's over and done [email protected](# it and thankfully, it ain't com'n back for a long time. 

If the feds have a billon dollars to spend on security they can find a few millions to help Toronto clean up and compensate those who suffered losses at the hands of the rabble who spent all that energy at not even being heard by those they came to address.

Even if they somehow did get a message across, the leaders of the G20 wouldn't give a rat's ass about what they had to say.

It's like a ritual at every G20. LOL


----------



## madhatress (Jul 22, 2007)

cap10subtext said:


> Why are we collectively not making a bigger deal about this? How about making it an election issue. I will not vote for anyone who sees fit to schedule these in an urban zone and acts like it's good for tourism.
> 
> Thanks for listening... I'm done now.


I think most Torontonians are as mad as hell. I know I still am.

I think the rest of the country isn't as PO'd because 1) It wasn't in their yard and 2) hating the COTU is sport.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

madhatress said:


> I think most Torontonians are as mad as hell. I know I still am.
> 
> I think the rest of the country isn't as PO'd because 1) It wasn't in their yard and 2) hating the COTU is sport.


If you didn't call it the COTU yourselves, it would go a long way toward making that disappear. 

Seriously, I like Toronto and always did having visited it hundreds of times. It's not like Alberta wasn't inconvenienced when it was last held here.

That said, I agree TO was an illogical choice. Better in the boonies, so to speak.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yep.

But as Kps says, it ain't coming back for a long time. Probably a very long time, thanks to viral-tastic sites like Youtube and Facebook and Twitter... anyone catch the video of the cops facing down the protesters on Queen St. West, waiting until they had finished singing the national anthem before suddenly charging them? _Oy vey_. Nice optics there, boys. _Niiiiiice._


----------



## madhatress (Jul 22, 2007)

SINC said:


> If you didn't call it the COTU yourselves, it would go a long way toward making that disappear.


hmmm...think I'll start a facebook group called "Stop calling it the COTU!!" 

And for $1 billion, they could have:
1) bought land, 
2) built some (ok a lot) of cute little cottages in Huntsville, 
3) had summit,
4) sold cottages for market value,
5) profit!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Max said:


> Yep.
> 
> But as Kps says, it ain't coming back for a long time. Probably a very long time, thanks to viral-tastic sites like Youtube and Facebook and Twitter... anyone catch the video of the cops facing down the protesters on Queen St. West, waiting until they had finished singing the national anthem before suddenly charging them? _Oy vey_. Nice optics there, boys. _Niiiiiice._


YouTube - Peaceful G20 protest at Queen & Spadina


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sinc, far as I know, I am the one who started calling it the COTU here at Ehmac. That was in jesting response to the amount of times it had been used by people. I thought, why not abbreviate it and have a larf? I stand by using it because it's still funny to me. I consider it a bit of cheap reverse psychology.. not unlike "queer" or "***" being appropriated by gays to 'take back' the term and repurpose its meaning. if you don't like the admittedly silly COTU, find another more suitable to your tastes. Or skip my posts. I'm going to continue to use it for the time being. I figure I put up with "centre of the universe" from sneering fellow Canuckistanis for an awful long time. I was a good sport about it; the least y'all can do is repay the favour.

Madhatress: yeah, start a Facebook group. Everyone knows how massively influential they are. You'll get a bunch of irate Torontonians coming on side, while the rest of the FB world will wonder what's in the water over here.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Hey Max, I meant that in a lighthearted way.

Didn't you read the rest of that post where I pointed out that I have visited TO hundreds of times and quite enjoyed it? I thought I was returning the favour? Touchy tonight or what? 

If I could, I would love to sit down with that little group you go for drinks with on the other site and knock back a beer or scotch or both with you dudes 'cause I kinda think we have more in common than we might know here in cyberville.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sinc, I _did _read the whole post. I think today must be Crossed Wires Day for myself and some Ehmac regulars such as yourself and Screature. Look, it's all good. No insults or testiness intended, man. Have a good one - off to watch some early Harry Potter (changing gears, big time).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Fair 'nuff, peace on ya man.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Explore the Virtual Charter - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 23 languages

Freedom of the press
Freedom of peaceful assembly
Freedom of association
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure
Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned
Everyone has the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right



YouTube - Peaceful G20 protest at Queen & Spadina


Peace. Order. Good Government.


*Paikin on police attack against peaceful protest*
The Vanity Press


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Max said:


> More to the topic at hand: I am becoming increasingly discouraged about these G summits. Their lack of transparency makes me think ill of them and become all too cynical and caustic about their prospects for success. Seems like a very expensive series of grandstanding photo-ops for a bunch of national heads of state. To expect something substantive from these meets looks like a mug's game. The real deals have already been forged, or are about to be forged, in various board rooms and cabinet chambers scattered across the world.


+1

Why even bother having them, if nothing substantial gets accomplished? Especially for $1B, when we are running a deficit...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

groovetube said:


> just a brilliant idea to have this downtown toronto.
> 
> Have it in fraking Calgary. Sorry Calgarians, but you wanted him (Harper), you can have him and his crap. And we're so shocked this happened?
> 
> It only happened everywhere else.


Had any one thought to ask those Calgarians who went through the last Summit fiasco, they would have heard something along these lines: "Tell Harpo to shove his Summits up his..."

As for the anarchists, at least some of them are undercover cops, they are there to create a reason to arrest the protesters and to make sure whatever it is they are trying to say is ignored by the mainstream media. Remember the fellow in Montreal diving for the safety of the police lines when his cover was blown?

After all we would not want the Flabby Tabbies to find out a lot of people disagree with the course they are charting.


----------



## hhk (May 31, 2006)

*Chief Blair must go.*

I'm just stunned by what I've read in today's Globe and Mail.

1. That the police misled the public into believing that the 5 metre law existed when, in fact, it didn't. McGuinty is complicit in this deception. 

2. That Chief Blair displayed "weapons" that had absolutely no connection to the Summit protests in his little p.r. show.

Both constitute an abuse of power far more serious than the individual acts of police over-reaction on Sunday. Blair needs to resign over this. Appalling.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

^^ I totally agree. Lying to the public is instant grounds for dismissal :

"However, the “weapons” included items not normally considered dangerous, including skateboard and bicycle helmets, bandanas, golf balls, tennis balls, bamboo poles, goggles, rope, plastic tubes and walkie talkies. The police also laid out several notebooks and shields depicting red clenched fists, a resistance symbol.



In addition, some of the items presented to the media were not seized by protesters. A car search last Friday netted a cross bow and chain saw but they were not determined to be G20 related, and no charges were laid. When this was pointed out, Chief Blair acknowledged the items should not have been displayed but said “everything else” was seized from summit protesters.



However, police also included objects taken from a Whitby, Ont., man who was heading to a role playing fantasy game in Centennial Park Saturday morning. As was reported by the Globe on Saturday, Brian Barrett, 25, was stopped at Union Station for wearing chain mail and carrying a bag with an archery bow, shield and graphite swords. His jousting gear was seized by police, but was on display Tuesday, even though he was not charged and police told a Globe reporter it was a case of bad timing."


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

I was watching City-Tv. A guy who looked to be in his 70's had already turned and was walking away from the cops when one of them on his bike pushed the guy from behind. He hit the pavement but I don't know if he was injured. This cop is certainly a pig.


----------

