Okay, it’s now been well over two weeks and I’m just about ready to put this puppy to bed.

But before I do, let me round out the G20 weekend for you, dear reader. Let’s start with the Black Bloc, the attention whores of the summit.  While I was trying to figure out who they are and where they came from, a few glaringly obvious pieces of evidence jumped out at me with a, “zut alors!”

I’m ninety-nine percent convinced that the Bloc and their comrades are Quebec separatists.

For starters, you may remember some of the shit that the FLQ — Canada’s very own home-grown terrorist organization — got up to during the sixties, demonstrating that they were more than ready to use violence, kidnapping, and murder to achieve their ends. A few broken windows and graffiti, really, wouldn’t be beyond the pale.

As “socialists”, they easily take offense to anything even resembling capitalism, so their presence at the G20 riots wouldn’t be at all out of character. Finding day-glo stickers attached to vandalism such as in the above photo (not even bothering to deliver an English version of the statement), well, that’s a pretty strong message that these folks were from out of town.

Now, do you remember the two young vandals trying to torch the CBC News van in the previous post? Well, they were part of this group:

These folks were appropriately dressed as unthinking zombies and, apart from readily engaging in vandalism, were spreading all sorts of strange mixed messages. Maybe it’s a language barrier thing. The banner above, for example – does it mean that they’re waging war against truth? In other words, spreading lies? And what about the miniature casket they were carrying around with them for effect?

In case you can’t read it, the writing down the side says, “DEMOCRATIE”. That’s French, as in Québécois, for “DEMOCRACY”. Again, I’m not sure what was meant by this – does it symbolize the death of democracy? As in, they’re mourning for it? Or are they the ones who want to bring about its demise? In hindsight, the brain-dead getups were bang-on.

But I think the most damning piece of evidence was a leaflet (along with some other excellent literature), I received from a self-styled “Marxist” a few days earlier at the Allan Gardens rally (where we can also see black-clad, French-speaking “anticapitalistes”):

To me, this kinda ties it all together with a nice little bow. First we have the “Revolutionary Communist Party” identification front and center. Communism, Socialism, FLQ, pee pee poo, same same.

Although the RCP betray some of their earlier FLQ ideals by actually including English here, they nonetheless put their French acronym first in the website address and, lo and behold, they’re based out of Montreal, Quebec! And have a look at the photograph they chose to accompany the leaflet; golly gee, don’t they look exactly like Toronto’s own Black Bloc goofbags? I’m guessing that I’ll get a good gander at them in mid-December, and I’m further guessing that I won’t be a bit surprised at what I see.

Even the name Black Bloc – spelled without a “k”; the French way – it all leads back to the same place, the same people — les idiots.

Not an awful lot of brainpower involved here.

Truly the work of the mentally challenged. At least they got one word right.

PPISONS must be some sort of French flambé dish.

Not the POLIVE! Anything but the POLIVE! Or POLIUE? These French spellings always screw me up.

This one shocked me with it’s coherence. They got the anarchy symbol wrong but hey, they are rebels. Maybe this is their way of saying “FUCK ANERKY!”.

Okay, enough of douchebags and their monosyllabic eloquence. There’s one other issue that keeps getting raised over and over again: police violence.

One of the main reasons I stuck myself at the front lines was to see exactly how the police would deal with the protesters, and how the protesters engaged police.

The main theme repeatedly brought up by the Toronto Community Mobilization Network, the people who hosted all of the protesters (including the Bloc), was the use of violent police tactics. This was well before any of the protests actually began. Some of their concerns seemed legitimate; I myself discussed some of the police interactions I had had with the Network’s legal counsel. But their defeatist attitude and their refusal to lift a finger to actually aid anyone quickly convinced me that they weren’t really in it for the social change or the protest. And, despite repeated interviews (some of which I was at personally), they refused to denounce violence. At all. In any way. In fact, any time they were asked about it, they would deflect with something to the effect of, “well that was a stupid question. What about the real issues?”

So here’s a group of people, actively fomenting violent protest. I mean, freely mingling with Bloc members and (it’s even been suggested), protecting them, pretty much speaks for itself. And once again, I have my own experience to lean on – the cops I spoke to clearly stated that they didn’t want any violence and that they would refrain whenever possible. The TCMN said nothing of the sort, even going so far as to suggest that violence may be necessary for those “without a voice”. I’m not sure who these hypothetical voiceless people were, though; I could scarcely hear my own thoughts over the din sometimes.

The majority of the protests, however, were peaceful. Non-violent, I mean. Yes, the cops were out in full riot gear, and I was prepared to bolt if anyone got to shoving, but it didn’t happen while I was there.

In fact, as with the protest marches, I got the distinct feeling that many of the people either had no idea why there were there, were there to invite people to the Rage Against the Machine concert taking place later (no kidding, actually handing out glossy leaflets), or weren’t part of any protest; just kinda hanging out or there to make new friends.

When I got home that Saturday evening I followed Twitter for a while to see what was happening. One of the major online happenings that night was the brief detention of Steve Paikin, effectively TVOntario’s news anchor with The Agenda.

As his disjointed tweets rolled in, describing the riot police moving in on a group of sitting protesters on The Esplanade, people were reacting with shock and basically saying, “There? See? A respected journalist getting hassled by the police! POLICE STATE!”

My take on Steve Paikin? Not sure if I want to say it publicly. But not positive. Not at all. That goes for everyone else who was rounded up and arrested in that late-night demonstration.

Let’s get a few things straight, shall we?

To begin with, every time the police moved their lines (and by all reports, that evening was no exception), they gave everyone a good loud warning. Of course some people chose to ignore it and instead asserted that these were “our streets!”

As we’ve learned, no, zeez are not your streetz, Frenchies.

I was part of a few riot police actions and, through some miracle, managed to escape without harm or incarceration. What miracle, you ask? I GOT OUT OF THE FUCKING WAY!

This, I believe, was Steve’s first failure. I suppose that he was expecting that his prima donna status would put him above all that. His tweets certainly gave me that impression.

Next, Steve started to question why the riot police were moving on a line of peaceful protesters simply sitting out in the middle of the street, in the middle of the night, asserting their right to sit in the middle of the street, in the middle of the night. As we all do.

Two points on the ignoramus scale for Stevie here.

First, when would police ever let people block a street like that, protest or not? Tell you what, Steve, why don’t you go out and stand in the middle of a downtown intersection right now? Just stand there, or better yet, sit like the protesters did – peacefully — and refuse to move — peacefully. Go on, exercise your rights. Do it with a group of friends if it’ll make you feel more comfortable.

Second, the cops had spent the better part of the day trying to break up these groups who had demonstrated quite aptly that they were ready to engage in good old-fashioned vandalism. Gee, Steve, you couldn’t see any reason why the police might try to disperse the group? Or maybe you expected that they should’ve questioned people individually so that they could let all the good ones go? Seriously? Dumbass.

Then the situation started to get heavy. Apparently Steve witnessed a foreign reporter getting hit in the gut by riot cops. The guy happened to be unaccredited and was mouthing off to the police for being detained.

Here, again, I hearken back to my own expectations of the protests going in. I had these little hand-made paper signs that read “MEDIA: torontocitylife.com”, affixed to my bag and shirt. I expected that, should I be detained by police, they would count for exactly nothing. They were there, basically, as a form of hope that, should I be detained, the cops might treat me with some leniency. Certainly not an expectation of any kind.

Apparently Steve’s expectation was that he could just stroll out into the middle of a protest, surrounded by riot cops who had spent a day fighting burning police cars and getting harangued by rude protesters, and that…what? They’d come up to him and ask for his autograph?

I keep asking the same questions over and over again: Why was I able to read all the situations correctly (I was part of quite a few protests and standoffs that day, Steve was part of one)? Why wasn’t I hassled, detained, arrested, or even looked at funny? Why was I always looking for “outs” and making sure the cops weren’t getting ready to close in? And when they did, why was I always able to successfully side-step them?

Why does a complete amateur like me go into a situation with, what are obviously realistic expectations, and someone like Steve Paikin walks obliviously into the rabble, after everything that took place that day, and expects to come out smelling like roses?

Stay behind the desk where you belong, Steve.

And that goes for the rest of you people who “innocently” wondered into these protests and found yourselves “unwittingly” caught up in the police crackdown. Next time, here are a few clues that might tell you something might be going down, even if you do genuinely wander into these situations like the blithering idiots that you claim to be:

1. Do you see a line of heavily shielded riot police bearing shields, night sticks, and gas masks? That might be an indication that there’s a heavy police presence there and that something might happen. You may want to hang back a bit.
2. Did you suddenly wander into a pack of people who are shielding their faces with bandanas and sunglasses? Those people probably don’t want to be identified, probably because they’re up to no good. You might want to leave that particular group. Again, just hang back if you’re curious.
3. Are people engaging in illegal activity? (The law applies 24 hours a day. As far as I know, there is no moratorium on Saturday nights.) If you see something like this, chances are good that police may move in to arrest them. Chances are even better if there was a high level of illegal activity earlier in the day. If you’re in the middle of the group, the police probably won’t stop to have a pleasant chat with you about why you’re there, what your favourite restaurants are, and so on.
4. Are you in front of a line of riot police who have suddenly started to move forward? They have to move in unison in order to maintain their line so they won’t be going that fast. Maybe…get out of the way?
5. Have you just been detained by police while in the midst of a volatile situation (see above for indicators)? Try not telling them to go fuck themselves, or calling them pigs, etc. Perhaps just try following their directions? I know, I know, they just want to beat you and rape you but, hey, you might luck out. Calling them names or trying to fight them is less likely to get you out of that situation unscathed, unless you believe you can take them all on.
6. Is your head in your ass? Pull it out.

Now let’s never speak of this ugly affair again. Unless something interesting and relevant comes up.

Share / save this post

One of the most iconic images of the G20 riots a couple of weeks ago was the that of the burning police car. You know the one:

I’ve heard a lot of criticism of the Toronto Police for leaving the vehicles unattended (as though that was, somehow, justification for them being set on fire). I’ve also heard much speculation on why the cars were there in the first place. Well, I have some theories on the second point (they were following the rear of the protest parade, perhaps?), but I believe I can answer the first one succinctly and authoritatively:

Putting resources (riot cops) to work guarding other areas, at that point, seemed like a pretty wise move. I suppose they could’ve tried to send a tow tuck in there to try to retrieve the cruisers but I think it’s reasonable to think that the truck could easily meet with the same fate. And that’s assuming they could get the seated “protesters” out of the way.

Some people have tried to convince me that these seated youngsters were there in order to protect the cops.  Haha! No shit! The same people trying to convince me heard it “from a friend” or other such reliable sources. But I tend not to trust those sources so much. Also, I took some time out to speak to the people on the ground directly — and that’s not the story I got.

I approached the young man with the glasses and leather jacket seated at the bottom of the last photo above to inquire why he was there. He initially misunderstood me and said, “No!”

I retried it with something simpler, “Where are you from?!”

“I’m from here! Toronto!”, he replied. (It was pretty loud)

“Who is this group you’re seated with?!”, I continued.

“I don’t know!”, he smiled, “I just sat down with them when I saw they were forming a line!”

“Oh!”, I shouted back, quite surprised. (I’d assumed the group was more organized than that.) “So what’re you protesting?!”

“I just don’t like the police!”, he shouted back, smiling, and shrugged.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media got there considerably later (as usual – slow pokes!), and it was they who were initially berating the cops for abandoning their cars (plus engaging in a little melodrama for the cameras and my amusement later on). Essentially, I don’t think they really had access to the full story.

Probably all that heavy equipment they have to lug around. Plus, they have to find a place to park their vans. In an urban environment, it’s just not the most efficient way to get around.

I’m seriously considering applying as a freelance (or staff), reporter for the local media. I’m thinking that me and my feet are a lot cheaper than a fleet of vans and fancy lighting — seems like a good deal, no?

Anyhow, by now you’ve probably already heard that the Black Bloc (I’ll be writing more about this in a later post), were responsible for the majority of the damage that day. They claim that the name refers to a tactic rather than an organization. I claim that it refers to a bunch of snot-nosed kids with way too much time on their hands.

In hindsight, it was really nice of them to pose for a group photo like this. It was even nice for a few of them to unmask themselves, albeit unwittingly.

You really can’t blame these revolutionary heroes for hiding their faces though. If their mom and dad ever found out I’d bet they’d get grounded for, like, forever. And without their disguises they’d never have been able to seamlessly blend back into the crowd afterward.

If this is a prime example of Black Bloc tactics, I’m going to suggest that they need a new tactician. For starters, maybe not dressing in all-black so as to suggest, you know, Black, would help.

Perhaps they thought that black would be slimming.

Continued in next part…

Share / save this post

It’s mostly the rhetoric and misinformation guiding the protest that I take exception to. After all, people were just expressing themselves and exercising their right to peaceful protest which, much to John Clarke’s chagrin, ended up actually being peaceful. There were a few arrests made along the route, that’s true, but I suspect they involved the kind of people that would get arrested any old day, protest or not.

For most of us on the street the Friday afternoon was more like a parade.

Or a carnival perhaps.

Although it’s difficult to make out facial expressions beneath the gas masks, I can attest to the fact that more than one cop was willing to crack a smile and a joke that day.

And despite (or perhaps because of), the heavy police presence, the march generally felt quite safe.

A little loud perhaps…

…but safe.

As more than one fellow photographer pointed out, it’ll be a while before we get photo-ops like this again. Because, contrary to many of the protesters’ assertions, this “police state” we live in hardly ever gets this many cops in one place at one time.

As the group wound its way south along University Avenue, blocking off motorists, pedestrians, and businesses, they came up to a line of police at Elm Street. Apparently unaware of the irony of the situation, they demanded that they be allowed to walk further and that their rights to be on the streets were being violated.

This resulted in the first tense moment of the weekend (and it wasn’t even the weekend yet!), as Montreal riot police marched out from some side alley, pounding their shield in a menacing display of force. I was intimidated, that’s for sure.

As I stood perched on top of a nearby statue recording the situation I began to get the sinking feeling that, perhaps, things wouldn’t go well. The cops weren’t standing in direct opposition to the group – it wasn’t a showdown, in other words — but I knew they were ready to rush into the melee should anything start.

After a few moments the protest group grew silent and onlookers were told to move farther south. Uh-oh. Was this when the violence would erupt?

Thankfully, after containing the crowd along University Avenue for a few minutes the police decided to open up their lines along Elm Street to allow a thin stream of protesters to continue along the alternate route. Maybe it was alternate; the actual direction of the protest wasn’t really shared with anyone in the crowd. The organizers spent more time talking about bringing war to the city than telling people what, specifically, would be happening.

The loud group filled the narrow street and, after a few more stops along the way, were re-directed back to University and then back along College Street. At that point the tension had all but disappeared and the police became just an escort again.

The protesters got their message out, which police officers undoubtedly rushed to share with the G20 delegation, and all of us, now tuckered out after a long afternoon’s march, returned to Allan Gardens where the protesters pitched a tent city and continued loudly into the night.

I heard what sounded like live hip-hop performances and other acts (funky stuff, if I must say so myself). There didn’t seem to be much concern for the civil rights of nearby residents but, if nothing else, the park was clean and clear the next morning. And were I to judge by the interactions between police and protesters that evening, with people bringing ice cream and snacks to cops seated on curbs, I don’t think there was any animosity between the two groups.

Had people been able to keep that attitude into the weekend, I can’t help but get the feeling that what happened on Saturday wouldn’t have happened.

Continued in next part…

Share / save this post

I am, of course, referring to the G20 summit that shut down most of Toronto over the weekend. I’m sure most people are now well aware of the outrageous costs surrounding the event and I wanted to see what kind of security that kind of money could buy. Even more than that, I wanted to see how the situation would be handled.

At every one of these meetings there are accusations of police brutality, protest situations getting out of hand, riot police, riot police, and more riot police. I needed to see the instigators for myself and not have to rely on either the media, the police, or the protesters for the facts – they could be quite skewed in all directions. The only way I can say anything with authority is to be right there between the riot police and the balaclava’d opposition.

But I’m getting a little ahead of myself. Lots of stuff happened over the weekend but plenty happened before that. There were a number of protest marches and demonstrations throughout the city that, unfortunately, were lost in the subsequent shuffle. There were also a couple of related news items that I think are worth mentioning.

Despite some of the images you may have seen coming out of Toronto over the past few days, the vast majority of the protests and protesters were entirely peaceful.

A number of protests gathered at Allan Gardens, the public park just north of my flat. Protest organizers contacted police well ahead of time and the cops responded by clearing the park of any throw-able objects (I think the garbage cans are coming back today). Protesters also shared their route with the police who in turn cleared a path through traffic and escorted them. The police upheld (often with smiles and friendly banter), citizens’ rights to peaceable assembly and demonstration. Shock!

Just about every one of these early rallies was organized by one main group but typically composed of a variety of sympathetic ones that lent their voices of support. For example, the Native Rights group in these photos were really a collection of different tribes from around Canada and also included anti-poverty activists, minority rights people, women’s rights demonstrators, and so on. Say what you will about these people, even some of the more militant factions, they conducted themselves with dignity and there wasn’t even a hint of violence. I hope they don’t do it too often but I’d welcome them to march down the streets of Toronto any day.

Even some of the groups that protested closer to the G20 had some minor skirmishes with the police — but not these folks. I must profess a deep respect for what I saw, especially in light of what took place later during the weekend. And I learned a few things that I feel bear further study, things like disturbingly large number of missing native women, as well as stories of life in foster care, and so on. Many of the personal tales ended on an upbeat tone – people had gotten their lives together and are trying to provide a better one for their kids; it wasn’t whining or complaining, in other words.

No lazy alcoholic Indians in sight.

As the week wore on the protests intensified, the rhetoric did as well. That’s a shame because it ended up providing air time for people with increasingly smaller brains. And, although there were increasingly restrictive, and by all accounts secret (no one was told about them!), measures piled on Toronto citizens, these too led to shrill hyperbole that, well … have a look for yourself. (Try not to crack a smile.)

Turns out this law had been on the books for some time (it applies to police stations, government offices, etc.), but was extended to five meters (sixteen feet) around the security fence. Only temporarily, I should add – the added powers given to the police expired about ten hours ago as of this post. And I believe only two people were arrested under it, including Charlie Veitch, the guy being interviewed in the video acting all innocent (sorry, Charlie, but I was right there in the crowd with you!), and Dave Vasey the guy Charlie mentions he was in jail with. And who also turned out to be a bit of an instigator.

But many of the measures initially seemed draconian and like something out of a George Orwell novel. The term “police state” was bandied about a lot and, for a while there, I admit that I bought into it.

Were the police really going to start cracking down, putting bags over our heads, murdering us, and stealing out organs?!

Continued in next part…

Share / save this post

And then there are the protesters.

Obviously I believe that they have something to protest. Even the groups that I think are mostly out to lunch deserve to have their voices heard. And both the government and the security forces have repeatedly stated that people have the right to peaceably demonstrate. I mean, putting the “official” demonstration area twelve blocks north of where the summit is happening is laughable, but at the same time, the few recent protests that have taken place moved around the city pretty much unimpeded. Accompanied by Toronto police, of course, but with the cops actually “keeping the peace” — as advertised!

As I’ve been careful to point out, most of the police I’ve encountered so far have successfully walked that thin line between enforcement and accommodation. Good people, and I get the impression that they got into policing for all the right reasons. Basically the kind of cops you’d want policing your streets. And I’ve already spent enough time berating those officers that seem to be ready to cross over the aforementioned line in a non-accommodating way (though the opposite is just as bad).

At the same time, the extra security around town isn’t entirely unwarranted. The tactics being used or espoused by some of the protest groups run the gamut from just plain dumb right up to outright violent. That protest on Monday, for example, the one that I ended up missing while I was having my chat with the riot police, that one ended up at an Esso gas station not too far away. It was a mostly peaceful march and the gas station was occupied for only about 10 minutes — but what the hell was the point?

Presumably the protesters were intending to hurt the Esso Corporation, but none of them seemed to be able to pull their heads out of their asses long enough to realize that a single gas station isn’t the corporation. Most of these stations are operated as franchises by individuals. These people invest in the business, as with any other franchise, and then pay the head company for products, deliveries, etc. Admittedly some locations do better than others, but attacking them is basically the same as attacking individual business owners. And their families. And the customers. Taking over a single location really doesn’t do a whole heck of a lot of damage to the corporation, just to the very people that these protests are supposed to be supporting.

Here again the police exercised restraint and wisdom and let the protesters stick around for a little while before moving them off. Frankly, I believe in property laws (I don’t want random people barging into my place!), so I thought the cops were being quite generous. Plus, as someone who’s had to sit in traffic while placard-waving idiots walked by my car and banged on the hood, blocking off traffic is not something I necessarily approve of. Okay, yeah, a peaceful march and a few minutes of inconvenience is fine. But again, we’re all roughly in the same boat so who are these protests really affecting?

So obviously some of these protesters are missing the point. Wonder if they ever had it to begin with. But they had their fifteen minutes, wasted it, see ya next time.

When they mix violence into it, however, that takes stupidity to a whole new level. And if the Toronto Community Mobilization Network (responsible for putting up, feeding, and organizing most of the visiting protesters), bothered to give it any thought, they’d denounce violence in a heartbeat.

That’s main organizer Sayed Hussan on the left, and legal counsel Sandra Somethingsomething (unfortunately I missed her last name) beside him, providing a statement in front of Police headquarters this afternoon. When I heard they’d be down there I hauled my ass down to ask Sandra what to say / do should I have another interaction with police.

Why? Because I fully intend on following the law, that’s why. So I can also feel right in my heart of hearts if I have to stand up to police should they overstep their authority and break the law. So that I’ve done my due diligence as a responsible human being. Because I expect the law to apply to everyone.

However, Sayed was asked (by Newstalk 1010, I believe), for a second time (the first in a previous interview), if he denounced violence. “Yes”, he replied, “by police”. And for the second time he refused to denounce violence by protesters.

Look, even if one believes that violence is a fair way to fight back against the police, is it realistic, at all, to think that it would result in anything less than getting a good thrashing from the cops? Has no one told Sayed how much money is being spent on security? Did he somehow fail to see the swarms of officers that would beset protesters when they turn violent? What kind of tactic is that? I mean, are they actually trying to make change happen or are they just looking for a fight?

From the protestor’s perspective, violent confrontation is a stupid tactic and I have yet to witness circumstances in which it’s “the last resort”, as it’s being described. Throw a few rocks, maybe punch a few officers if you manage to get close enough – and then what? What did that achieve? Where did that get you? What did that prove? Ooh, you’re big and brave and scary. Yeah, great, and now you’re either in police detention or hiding somewhere.

And I’d like to remind you, dear reader, that I’ve got just about as much right to gripe about police unfairness as the people brandishing funny hairstyles and shouting unintelligible slogans. In fact, both myself (as you already know), and two friends had run-ins with police in which no explanations were given, no justifications provided, no laws cited. At least the people that Sayed and Sandra had come down to discuss in front of media had received tickets to justify their detentions, spurious as those tickets were (jaywalking, loitering, etc.)  And I got off relatively easy – my friends were detained and questioned for a good length of time, then sent on their way without so much as a “thank-you for your time”.

My reactionary tactic was to start being extra friendly to police – I wave to every group I see, say “hello”, wish them a good day – if they’re going to treat me like a threat then they better be able to explain it to a judge. I might still get treated unlawfully there and then, but fighting provides them with legal grounds to come back at me, and chances are very good I’ll get my ass kicked. I lose once on the street and a second time in court.

Common fucking sense.

To be fair, Sayed wasn’t inciting violence. But, it was quite clear that he thinks it’s an acceptable tactic.

Other groups, however, are going full-out, planning to be “confrontational”, sometimes not only with police but also with media:

We will take back our city from these exploitative profiteers, and in the streets we will be uncontrollable! This is a militant march where many forms of resistance and tactics are welcomed and respected.

Wow, what kind of a “fuck you” to everybody is that? And how utterly pointless?

Some of these very same people are suggesting that the police may use agent provocateurs – disguised cops milling with the crowd trying to incite violence in order to justify a heavy-handed response. Haha! Seriously?! What would the cops do that the group wouldn’t readily do itself? In other words, why insert undercover cops when the protestors will start or continue the violence themselves? And if there should prove to be some truth to these accusations, what’s the plan for trying to expose the undercover agents?

It’s alleged that Quebec police did just that in Montebello a few years ago. I’m not necessarily saying it’s not true but could we maybe assume that Toronto cops would be a little smarter and not wear standard-issue police boots? The only way to expose violent cops at that point, without any visible identification, would be … non-violence!

But that requires thinking, organization, and a committed ideology. *groan* Who wants to do that?

Share / save this post

I mean, the G20 meeting is easy to criticize. The cost, the purpose (or lack thereof), the way the rights of the citizens of Toronto are seemingly being shoved aside without regard; yeah, that all needs to be questioned.

Now more than ever, it seems.

Folks who follow my tweets will no doubt have read about my concerns about the seeming lack of any legal basis for any of the security restrictions. And that’s not just me saying that. Plus, I’ve been asking police what laws I’d be breaking should I breach the security barriers or if I fail to comply with their demands. Not that I necessarily plan to do so, but I’m deeply troubled by the fact that the police themselves don’t know what, specifically, they’re enforcing. If there’s a law (or laws), so be it — if I don’t like it then there’s a system through which it can be changed. But if there is no law…

In other words, if I was put into handcuffs, what would I be charged with? Keeping the peace, protecting private property, these things I understand and respect, but I want to be assured that I can’t be detained for no other reason than “heightened security”. That’s not a law, that’s an excuse, and a very dangerous one at that.

And that’s no longer just my pontification on the subject.

In the middle of the afternoon yesterday I heard about an impromptu protest being staged by the Toronto Community Mobilization Network, a group playing host to many of the protesters coming to the city. They started their march in Allan Gardens, moved down adjacent Sherbourne Street, and were routed west along Dundas by police until they decided to “take over” an Esso gas station at Jarvis. This route wasn’t planned in any way and by the time I got to Sherbourne the group was gone. I though they might’ve moved farther south so I continued along Sherbourne to Queen Street East. There I spotted a number of unmarked vehicles carrying riot police – must be the spot the protesters are heading towards, I thought.

I stopped by one of the open cars and asked one of the officers if they knew anything about the protest. Not a thing, he replied. So I waited under a shady tree in adjacent Moss Park, camera hanging off my arm by the strap, directly in front of the riot police. And waited. And waited.

I must’ve stood there for twenty minutes waiting for the protest group to come down, checking websites and tweeting from my mobile phone to try to get some more info. Every now and again I raised my head to see if anything was happening – nothing but the cops passing out drink bottles and engaging in casual chatter with each other.

Then two of the riot police approached me.

“Sir, are you with the media?”

“No”, I replied. Trying to be honest, I don’t consider TCL to be an established news organization. Not yet anyway.

“Then we’re going to have to ask you to leave the area for your own protection.”

I kind of stood there and blinked for a moment, dumbfounded.

Moss Park must’ve had some twenty to thirty people in it, some sun tanning, some walking their dogs, some just standing around like me. A further group of people were sitting on the curbs and nearby concrete embankments, also not doing a whole heck of a lot except sitting there and staring at the cops. I think if you were to pick out any particularly suspicious physical characteristic (mirror shades, five o’clock shadow, dishevelled clothing, etc.), you’d have been able to find at least two other people who were more likely suspects than me.

“My own protection? Will you be asking everyone to leave too?”, I asked. I felt like I was being singled out. But, if the protesters were coming then, yeah, they would be asking everyone else to leave too. Right?

“It’s because you’re taking photos of us getting kitted up”, replied the second cop, considerably less cordial than the first.

“I’m not taking photos…”, but was cut off before I could finish. “You were back there, I saw you”, replied cop number two. “Leave the area now”. End of pleasantness.

I was now getting rather annoyed, to be honest. Moments earlier I had spotted another photographer with a camera just as prominent as mine (more so, in fact), poking his lens right into the vehicles and taking more than a few photos of the cops up close and personal. He had what looked like a media tag slung around his neck with a lanyard. I don’t know who he was with, but I know that the cops didn’t even bat an eyelash in his direction – certainly didn’t check his “credentials”. They decided, instead, to arbitrarily pick on me.

“How about if I put the lens cap back on?”, I offered.

“Please leave the area.”

“What about if I just put the camera in my bag?”, I continued.

“Leave the area now.”

“Look, I’ve got a zoom lens on this thing. I could be at the other end of the park and take close-up pictures of you”, I tried to reason.

They shrugged. “Sir, please leave the area. For your own safety.”

Obviously not because of any protesters. And obviously just me. Was it because they would be threatening my own safety?

I decided there would be no reasoning with these guys so I acquiesced. I receded a few meters into the park, leaned up against the fence, and continued to try to get more information on the protest. The two cops, leaning into the car windows, pointed me out to their buddies and discussed how much of a threat I would be (I guess). The other guy with the camera went on his merry way, snapping even more photos as he walked by, passer-bys took shots with their mobile phones, but the police attention was still trained on me, fingers occasionally pointing in my direction.

I had my ID with me, I would’ve volunteered to have my bag searched, and I would’ve been happy to answer their questions – considerably more than your average citizen is required to do. I really had nothing to hide and, up until that point, had no gripe with the police. Unfortunately, none of this was an option – I guess they’d already made up their minds about me.

Eventually the group got back into their vehicles and sped off. Well, tried to. You know, downtown traffic pretty much ensured that I could easily keep up on foot. I guess the protest had broken up at that point, however, and the vehicles eventually dispersed in separate directions to go harass some other innocent civilian.

Here’s the thing: what the fuck ?!

Expressing concern about their identities being revealed, that I could understand. Not revealing license plate information also makes sense to me. Hell, if they knew anything about the law, they could’ve even requested that I not use their faces – that’s their right as citizens under the Copyright Act (you own the rights to your face and can refuse to have it used—seems sensible, no?). Besides, the police aren’t asking permission to take high-definition photos of everyone passing under the newly installed cameras that appear, literally, on every street corner.

Photographers are allowed, by law, to take photos in public places. Can you imagine how unwieldy it would be to try to get permission from everyone that appeared in the frame when taking a street shot? It’s why I can do what I do, and it’s why police can install cameras on street corners.

Okay, so at this point you’re probably asking what the big deal is? Wasn’t like they were beating me with batons and, frankly, I could’ve told them to go to hell.

What this situation does, unfortunately, is to demonstrate just how illegal and intrusive some police actions may be during the summit. You see, I wasn’t anywhere near the fenced security zone, I was a block away from my flat. My neighbourhood. Allan Gardens, the park where the protest started, is across the street from me.

When it’s calm, the riot cops can afford to walk up to “suspicious” people to try to intimidate them, but if things start to get a bit more heated, I doubt that they’ll take the time out to ask who I am, what my purpose is, or even try to take off their riot gear to identify themselves. The most likely scenario will be: there’s a guy with a camera (or whatever) — we don’t like the looks of him, attack / arrest first, maybe ask questions later. In my neighbourhood, on my street, out in public. How likely is this? Based on this recent interaction, I’d say very.

See the problem?

Following this run-in I flagged down a group of about nine Toronto bicycle cops – plenty around these days. I asked them if I’d done anything illegal or even just questionable, if they could think of any reason why the riot police would’ve approached me like that, and if it was within their power to detain me or remove me from the area (had I decided to take it that far). I explained the situation fully, including the few photos I took when I arrived at the scene. The bicycle cops looked me over, perhaps to see if I was menacing enough to warrant that sort of action, mulled it over a bit, and answered that they really couldn’t think of a reason. I hadn’t broken any law and, in fact, was free to take photos out in public as long as I wasn’t trespassing on private property. Exactly as I understood my rights. Exactly what I had done (and only briefly at that).

I should point out, once again, that the Toronto police are for the most part really decent folks. The bicycle cops joked around with me, smiled, and wished me a pleasant day as I was leaving. If the riot cops took that attitude, shit, I’d have even offered to delete the photos I took. My problem isn’t with the cops, per se, it’s simply the fact that they’re carrying weapons, restraints, authority, but apparently not terribly sure about what laws they’re enforcing. Not a single cop has been able to cite any legal justification for what’s happening around the city. Again, if I was breaking shit, trespassing, or being a jerk to the police, all of that is covered by law and good enough reason for them to slap the cuffs on me. I want them to have that power, it seems perfectly reasonable.

I was, however, breaking no law, doing or even thinking nothing wrong – literally standing under a shady tree in a public park, adjacent to a public sidewalk, among a group of other people who were loitering much as I was. My aim was to photograph the protesters, believing that the cops get a bum rap in the media when it comes to most altercations. Yes, actually on the side of the police and hoping to show them in a positive light.

Unfortunately, claims by protesters about police harassment now seem quite likely to me. What’s worse, the cops can’t seem to even claim any basis in law to support their actions. At the moment, what we have on the streets of Toronto are basically a bunch of armed, armoured thugs walking / driving around in unmarked vehicles and intimidating random people. I’m still trying to remain open-minded, still reminding myself of the law-abiding, friendly cops I’ve had interactions with. Perhaps these riot police are not natives, as the bike cops suggested, perhaps Montreal police shipped in for the occasion. Frankly, I don’t give a fuck where they’re from – it’s their duty to follow the laws they’re supposedly enforcing. Whatever those are.

And then there are the protesters…

Continued in part 2…

Share / save this post

After researching what the G-20 does, I have to say, I really don’t think that they’re this evil body of leaders bent on taking over the world that some people suggest. I mean, I suppose it’s possible, and I guess you need to have some megalomaniacal qualities in order to get to that level in global politics, but it just seems like they spend most of their time sitting around eating munchies and making nice-to-do lists. I can’t begrudge them that, it’s what I aspire to myself.

But does it deserve the amount of money that our government is throwing at it? Will the, at present, C$1.2 billion be the sound investment that they’re saying it is?

Yes, that’s billion. I know, seems pretty high to me too, but to be honest I’ve never held an international summit so I wouldn’t know how much to ask for at the door. And, yeah, if we’re going to have global leaders here, we should probably buy them the good munchies, not the dollar-store crap. Presumably this second option is what was chosen in Pittsburgh, the location of the last summit, where they spent US$12.2 million (roughly C$13 million).

The costs over the past few summits (these are estimates because, apparently, these figures didn’t warrant detailed tracking or further study), are:

• 2009 (U.K) – US$30 million (C$30,000,000)
• 2009 (U.S.) – US$18 million (C$18,000,000)
• 2010 (Canada) – C$1.2 billion+ — projected

It’s estimated that about half of this, or C$500 million, is being spent on security. That’s gonna be some security!

According to a recent article in the Sun, security guards can earn up to C$1,000 for two weeks’ worth of work. With 1,100 people being hired for this task (and let’s assume they’re all earning top dollar), that’s about C$1.1 million. The security fence will cost about C$5.5 million … ah what the heck, let’s say an even C$6 mill. So, fences and security are costing just over C$7 million, which leaves about C$490 million (note how I’m being generous with a few million here and there).

Let’s say that the police are getting an even C$100 million just for staff, and the same for their new toys. No, let’s say C$200 million for new toys; we want nothing but the absolute best! So, a total of C$300 million for the Toronto Police.

Presumably this will include the new security cameras as well as that sound cannon thing. That’s new cameras on 20 intersections, and let’s assume they put four cameras per intersection just for fun. So, 80 new units plus a sound thingie comes out to an average of C$2.5 million per unit. So, like, really expensive cameras (even if installation for each unit costs a million).

Okay, so so far we’ve got four jewel-encrusted cameras being installed by millionaires (a good idea really—they have considerably less reason to steal the equipment) on each street corner, police who can easily retire after the event, and private security that can certainly afford to get paid better. I suppose some of that money could go toward even better security fencing, though apart from automated gun turrets I’m not sure how they could improve it.

And we’ve still got C$190 million left over.

Let’s toss another C$100 million into the “miscellaneous security” pile just for good measure. In Winnipeg they purchased a new police helicopter at C$3.5 million, so that should leave our own force with enough dough (factoring in operating costs), to purchase at least 20 brand-new birds. That should still leave enough “miscellaneous” money to provide the entire G-20 security detail with diamond-studded uniforms and suh-weet pensions.

Shit, we’ve still got C$90 million left over. I’m at a loss to suggest how else this money could be spent; maybe a small security satellite launched into orbit?

Overall, if you break down the costs over a two-week period, we’re spending about 4 times as much on security as we are on national defence. In other words, G-20 security have the resources to easily take over Canada; our own army couldn’t stop them. Okay, I know, the Canadian army gets funding throughout the year so the financial comparison probably isn’t fair, but with most of those resources holed up overseas, a coup d’état would be relatively easy. And well funded.

At this point we’re at the halfway point in the spending. The rest, presumably, will go toward making everyone’s stays here comfortable and enjoyable.

The National Post estimates that about 10,000 people will be flying in for the summit, or about 500 people per country. That leaves ample room for each representative’s assistants to each be responsible for producing, spell-checking, and revising one word in the resulting G-20 publications (which might explain why they can’t seem to spell the organization’s name the same way).

It’s my understanding that the delegations will be paying their own way while they’re here over the weekend (plane trips, hotel rooms, etc.), so the C$50,000 per head price tag will be going toward some nifty grab bags and a frickin’ awesome convention room light show. Maybe some fancy napkins to go with the summit dinner too. Unfortunately, this part of the expense is the most hush-hush (national security, no doubt), so it’s tough to say exactly where and how the city will be spending C$25,000 on each person per day. What is quite clear, however, is that this expense will be roughly equal to the security expense for each person.

The fence and the security cameras are the only expenses that citizens will be able to actually account for.

In fact, Canadian citizens, the same people paying for all of this, will be barred from even a hint regarding spending until after the fact. After that, when the money’s been spent and we’re all making up for it with a new tax, we may be allowed to know where some of that billion dollars went. Not all of it, mind you; that would be a breach of security for the next summit, and it’s why there are no hard facts or figures on G-20 spending since the thing started.

Okay, now, to be fair, we’re also hosting the G-8 summit at the same time. Correction, Huntsville is.

I have to be honest, that is a nice location for the G-8 meeting. It’s in the heart of Ontario’s cottage country, picturesque countryside that typifies the idyllic Ontario summer. I’ve spent a good amount of time up there (about an hour and a half north of Toronto), and as a backdrop for photo-ops, I don’t think we could do much better. The area (more commonly known as the Muskoka Lakes region, or just the Muskokas), is our version of The Hamptons – million dollar houses amusingly called cottages, unbelievably cute and (at this time of year) busy tourist towns, just the right amount of wildlife so that people can pretend to be out in nature, etc.

So while the statement that the summits will put Toronto on the map is utter bullshit (finally people outside of Canada will know about the city’s existence!), in the case of Hunstville I tend to agree. And the town has been granted C$50 million by the feds to do it up for the visitors.

The calculations I did for the G-20 only went up to the one billion mark so this amount is easily included in the 1.2 billion. Hell, they could quadruple their budget and still come in under the gun.

But I can’t help but wonder if any of the delegates or the international press will have a chance to see Ontario’s natural beauty, what with the fake lake that’s being built here in the city to mimic the Muskokas. There’s some debate whether the lake will cost C$2 million as initially reported, or C$57,000 according to recent statements, but that doesn’t really seem like the real issue here, does it?

Nah, says our government, it’s worth it. It’s not a lake, they say, it’s a reflecting pool, and it’s for all the media who won’t be allowed to go to Huntsville for the G-8. Plus, it’s not just for the pool, they continue, it’s also for a replica of the Toronto Stock Exchange — literally three blocks up the street – and other representations of Toronto. In other words, they’re re-building replicas of parts of Toronto, in the center of Toronto, to represent Toronto to visiting journalists. And, unfortunately, the citizens of Toronto won’t get to see how their “city” looks because it’ll all be torn down after the summits.

In the meantime, citizens will be barred from the area, businesses will be forced to close, and residents need to apply for special ID and be prepared to give security “good reason” for entering the security perimeter. Furthermore, police will be discouraging people from even coming close to the security fence, with traffic being diverted for several blocks outside of the outer security zone. In fairness, the fact that the roads in the area will be closed makes it, at least for this reason, sensible.

I asked police guarding the fence what laws I’d be breaking if I were to wander into the perimeter. What would I be charged with, in other words? Their answer was, “resisting a police officer’s orders”. I replied by saying, well, sure, I understand if I’m being rowdy or destroying property, even trespassing on private property or endangering my/someone else’s life, but what laws would I be breaking that would allow them to order me around in the first place, and hence charge me with resisting?

The answer, as far as they knew: none. There are no laws that say I may not cross the security barrier, that say I need to apply for special ID/etc., or that say I’m doing something illegal simply by being within the perimeter. But, if I do find myself there, I’m assured that the police can and will detain me.

It’s not exaggerating to say that this is the same (exactly the same, in fact), as the police telling you to get off a public sidewalk for no reason whatsoever, and if you don’t comply with their arbitrary demand, you will be arrested and charged – not with being on the sidewalk, but with not obeying the officer’s demand that you get off the sidewalk, which they had no right in making in the first place. And if they can demand that you follow some imaginary laws that they’re making up as they go along, what’s to stop them from making up other laws on the spot so that they can then charge you with not following them, and hence for resisting their orders to follow those made-up laws?

And I consider myself a supporter of the Toronto Police so it’s not like I want to butt heads with them.

There’s a legal precedent called “probable cause” under which police can do something like this – if it looks like you’re about to cause trouble, if you’re carrying a weapon, about to or in the process of breaking some law – but police need to show good cause for doing this, and for obvious reason. Once police stop you, they must have some legal basis for detaining you (again, you were causing trouble, carrying a weapon, trespassing on private property, etc.), but for them to hold you further, eject you from the area, or even charge you with resisting arrest, even though there’s no clear reason for them to have detained you in the first place, that’s setting an extremely unsettling precedent. And that’s what the police will be doing openly and publicly during the summits.

Without exaggeration, it’s fair to say that the police will be (and are), stripping Canadian citizens of their rights, without a basis under the law (let alone actual laws), to justify their actions. In other words, the police are making up their own rules and are enforcing them. I mean, if the cops guarding the fence don’t know the laws they’re supposedly enforcing, who does? And if they can’t cite the rules they’re enforcing, how am I supposed to be following them?

Moreover, why isn’t the Supreme Court of Canada stepping in and stopping this or trying to introduce some laws so that the police have something to lean on? Not like it’s a big secret or anything.

Pretty scary.

While I was having this chat with the cops (who were admittedly friendly and helpful), a construction chief working on the security fencing walked up to me and called me a “jerk” for questioning “the rules” (though she couldn’t tell me what, exactly, “the rules” are). I thought I was being polite and courteous – I’m sure I smiled and tried my best to assure the group that I had no intention of breaking any laws; I’ve never had a problem with the police and was simply asking what laws they were enforcing. I guess I was way out of line.

Maybe those protests aren’t quite so crazy after all.

Share / save this post

First, I wanted to start by looking at what the point of the G-20 actually is; who are they and what are they planning to do here. In the second part of this series I’ll be examining specifics to the Toronto summit; security, costs, and some of the things that would make me laugh out loud if they didn’t make me want to cry. The included photos are of the security perimeter fencing currently being erected through a large section of downtown Toronto (we’ll go on a tour in part 2).

The Group of 20 is composed of 20 large economic nations that have a major influence over the direction of the global economy. They consist of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, South Korea (this event’s chair), Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, The United States, and the European Union. Not sure how they work out the double-membership on that last one (with France, Germany, etc., being members of the E.U.), but there you have it.

The G-20 was put together after the Asian economic crisis in the late nineties and meet once a year to bring together new global financial policies and review their progress. Their first get-together was in Berlin in December, 1999.

The stated purpose of the G-20 is to promote economic co-operation and to bring stability to the global economy. During the last couple of years the group has worked toward addressing the financial meltdown that, I think it’s fair to say, started with the sub-prime mortgage fiasco in the States. After throwing over a trillion dollars at the problem (you can decide for yourself where that money ended up), they decided that they were doing a good enough job to vote themselves an even larger mandate beyond simply addressing crises. I’m guessing they voted this for themselves; it’s not quite clear how they gained these new powers. The group is supported (funded?) by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – in turn controlled by the G-20, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

In order to deal with current economic crisis the G-20 (summit) will be meeting twice this year, the next meeting to be held in Korea. Generally available public documents coming out of these meetings include Communiqués, typically 3 to 5 page booklets summarizing what had been discussed and concluded, a Workshop/Conference paper on a specific topic to accompany each summit (perhaps they deal with more than one issue at a time, this is just what I’ve seen), a number of brief (5 – 10 page) intermittent Publications, a number of brief (5 to 10 page) Work Programmes (schedules of topics for discussion?), documents from Working Groups (currently none), and a coming soon document (currently just the one) from G-20 Expert Groups.

During its 10-year existence, the self-described “informal forum” has produced 69 public documents, an average of 2 documents every month. To be fair, however, this includes all the G-20 documents, including those used for presentations and planning. Declarations and resulting analyses by the G-20 number about 50, or about 5 per year, a generous average of about 75 pages of actual public output per year.

To put this into perspective, all the member states, their armies of assistant “Sherpas”, and all the associated governmental departments, produce about 6 pages of physical output per month, the sum of the ideas and action plans for dealing with the whole world’s economy. At least, this is what’s made available to the public as evidence of the G-20’s ongoing efforts. But,  perhaps I’m not looking hard enough, perhaps the vagueness of the documents does not adequately reflect the discussions, perhaps the “open” details aren’t public.

The results of the last meeting on June 5, 2010, of the Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, concluded with the following points (summarized, but I tried to get everything in there without excluding the important stuff):

1. The G20 bigwigs (spelled “G-20” in other documents and the rest of the official G-20 web site), got together at a very important time given the current world economic state.
2. The global economy is recovering well, but unevenly. The G20 had a lot do with the current recovery. It’s important for countries to try to continue growing financially while trying not to destabilize their own economies, but specific actions should be based on countries’ own circumstances. All nations should drop their guard and try to promote international trade and globalization.
3. Based on reports by the IMF, the OECD, and ILO, the group produced a “basket” of options for countries to choose from in order to improve their financial situations. This basket will be presented at the Toronto summit.
4. The group is going to try even harder to fix the world economy by increasing financial transparency, bolstering banks, and by suggesting more regulation (I read this to mean self-regulation), of financial firms.
   • As part of this effort the group want larger cash flows available for banks (liquidity) and want to discourage excessive leverage (i.e. C’mon banks, please stop making stupid decisions and giving out ridiculous loans. Pretty please.) By 2012 there should be some rules in place.
   • The group will also try to reduce bad behaviour of international firms; to be discussed in Toronto.
   • The financial sector should make a “fair and substantial” contributions to pay for their fucks ups, and the group would like the economic playing field for everyone to be level; to be discussed in Toronto.
   • Members should keep reviewing each others’ policies (peer review).
   • Members should keep working together.
5. Developing and transition countries’ (the poorer guys in the G20), voting power to be increased by 3.13%, and one day the group hope to make it fully fair and equal. The group would like to eventually replenish the IDA16 African Development Fund and in the meantime welcome the “substantial capital increases” for a bunch of major banks (World Bank, Inter American Development Bank, European Bank, etc.)
6. The IMF’s “New Arrangements to Borrow” plan should be agreed to and implemented as quickly as possible. Under this plan, my understanding is that each member country is given borrowing credits to draw on IMF funds; Israel, for example, being eligible for 500 credits in loans, and South Africa eligible for 340 (small numbers as they’re both newcomers to the scheme).
7. The group should keep reviewing its own, and the IMF’s, policies regarding lending.
8. The group look forward to being able to cancel Haiti’s debt. Hopefully in Toronto.
9. The group would like to reduce or remove inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. Not sure if this means getting rid of all subsidies, or just the “inefficient” ones.
10. The minsters will be meeting again in Korea in October, before the November summit.

I suspect that this leaner, meaner sub-group of the G-20 probably gets more accomplished than the massive summits. Of course, I could be mistaken, but the above ten points likely reflect a pretty productive G-20 meeting.

So that, in a nutshell, is what the G-20 is, what they do, have done, and can be expected to do. In the next part I’ll be looking at some of the details of bringing this operation to Toronto. After that, well, you can judge for yourself whether or not the summit is a worthwhile endeavour.

Continued in part 2…

Share / save this post

Basically, unless someone can come up with one tangible benefit, the summit will end up being a huge middle finger to Toronto as well as the taxpayers of Canada. Nebulous statements of “benefits to the city” made by officials are not very convincing. Like, what benefits, exactly?

Well, there is one that I can think of, and it applies to only a very small group of Torontonians. Like myself.

I’m talking about the global media coverage that the G20 will invariably get. It’ll do nothing for local businesses, and I’m fairly certain most Canadian tax payers don’t give a flying fuck if the summit makes headlines in Brazil. But for anyone in the media, stories like this are akin to a sundae with whipped cream and a cherry on top, especially if shit really does go down and the protests start to get violent. For insignificant bloggers who happen to live near the turmoil, that’s especially true.

As crass as that may sound, it’s the truth. Tragedies, disasters, protest movements – they’re all headline fodder extraordinaire.

Take the recent seizing of Palestinian aid ships by the Israeli army, for example. Israel, Palestine, and the ships may all be half a world away, but thanks to Toronto’s Palestinian population the story came right to my front door. And thanks to an unfortunate series of events that resulted in the pro-Palestine demonstration yesterday, the topic can happily fly under the Toronto City Life flag.

In my privileged position as a blogger I can dispense with any pretense of journalistic impartiality (whatever that is). I’m not anti-Israeli, at least not the citizens, as certain shrill extremist Zionists might suggest; it’s just painfully obvious that the Palestinians are the ones getting shafted. I’m simply in favour of the Palestinians getting a fair shake.

If it wasn’t for tragic events and resulting Torontonian rallies, I might not get the opportunity to talk about these things. And talking about they need because it seems like some painfully obvious facts are being ignored.

Here’s the thing: I’m quite aware of the history of this conflict. I know that Palestinian factions share just as much of the blame for this mess as the Israeli security apparatus. Israel has every right to defend itself as does Palestine.

The whole conflict has been one story of retaliatory action after another. The most recent major example being Palestine’s shelling of Israeli towns within their own borders, and Israel’s resulting incursion in Palestine. In terms of violence, neither side is guiltless, this latest action included. However, there are a number of factors which put Israel clearly in the wrong.

The Israeli defense for going into Gaza has long been, well, defense; that the strip was used by Hamas and other organizations to launch attacks against Israel and so it needed to be secured. The army needed a barrier between the terrorists and Israeli civilians, in other words. Up until that point, even though Palestinian deaths were absolutely atrocious and completely unbalanced, I kinda had to side with Israel. Even to this day Israel is under attack from external forces so going outside the country in order to defend it seems reasonable. Not the way the Israelis carry out these missions, mind you, but the underlying justification seemed to make sense.

But then they started to settle Gaza and that entire argument went right out the window.

The moment Israel started to occupy lands that were not their own, and by doing so moving their own citizens right back into the line of fire, it demonstrated that the Israeli state wasn’t really interested in defense at all. They didn’t want to simply “exist” in peace in the region as they claimed, they didn’t really even care about protecting their own citizens — they’re an imperialist nation with the capabilities, support, and willingness to invade other countries. Palestine, being poor and disorganized, makes a perfect first target. Iran, it has been publicly stated many times, is next.

It’s important, though, to draw clear distinctions between the state of Israel, it’s people, and Jews. The three, although related through history, really don’t have much to do with each other. The state of Israel is the culprit – it has the power, means, and allies to carry out their ambitions. The Israeli people, I suspect, would likely happily give up this notion if they could live in genuine peace. I bet the people living on occupied lands aren’t living a carefree lifestyle. If Israel was a Jewish (religious), state then it’s frightfully fucked in the eyes of God – they’ve broken so many of God’s commandments now that simply calling themselves Jewish would be blasphemous. And while the state of Israel moves as a unified force, insisting that Jews worldwide control most western media means that they’re doing an awful job covering up the misdeeds of the Israeli government.

I don’t buy it as much as I don’t buy the wholesale branding of Palestine as a terrorist state. Which is another major problem in this struggle. While Israel’s flouting of Geneva conventions is somehow legitimized or simply shrugged off (white phosphorous weapons, illegal occupation, etc.) — I guess because the army has fancy uniforms and the U.S.’s cock buried in its ass — Palestinians’ use of guerrilla tactics is apparently pure evil and absolutely reprehensible. Like they have any other choice.

The Canadian and U.S. governments insist that Palestine lay down its arms and surrender to Israeli-U.S. rule before there’s even a hint of discussion. Palestinians, who can barely get food sometimes, are supposed to have a unified fighting force according to the selective Geneva rules that the U.S. and Canada like to pull out, who should all wear fancy new uniforms. No, seriously — apparently without that they’re not a legitimate army. And while they’re at it, they really should be lining up in fields in nice formations, ready to be shot at (exactly like the Israelis do). Without these qualities they’re simply terrorists and hence no negotiations.

The latest bit of nonsense coming from Israel in response to their invasion of the Palestinian flotilla, on it’s way to Palestine, in international waters, is just as absurd. The Israelis claim they had to shoot some people on the ships because they were brandishing weapons. Like knives, and crowbars, and wooden boards. I mean, if that’s good enough justification to unlawfully enter someone’s sovereign space and kill them then … you know, I’m not even going to justify that stupidity by elaborating.

Not only are the Israelis waging an assault on basic human rights along with their circle-jerk U.S. brethren, basically posturing about as nothing more than international thugs with big guns, they’re also directly assaulting our own intelligence. It’s nothing short of calling us all imbeciles for thinking that we’d buy their obvious bullshit.

What the hell gave them the right to board any ship in international waters in the first place?

Israel wants us to believe that killing hundreds of people, in their own country, in response to a few Israeli deaths is justified. What Israel is stating, quite clearly, is that a Palestinian life is worth considerably less than an Israeli life.

As it is, it’s in America’s best interest to keep the conflict going. And no, the U.S., just like Canada, has no interest in humanitarianism or helping out the underdog. We’re there to look out for our own interests, period. Afghanistan was a strategic location for the Russians when they invaded in the eighties; the U.S. fought them because it was the Cold War and the Russians were trying to grab new territory. America never gave a shit about Afghans. They wouldn’t have given a shit about Kuwait being invaded by Iraq either except that Kuwait’s run by people who play ball with the U.S. and, surprise surprise, the country has huge oils reserves.

The U.S. defended Kuwait’s oil fields under Bush senior while the slaughter of Kurds took place in northern Iraq. The only reason America gave for going there in the first place was to defend the Kurds. Mission accomplished! The reason the U.S. invaded Afghanistan this time around was to find and destroy Al Qaeda. Mission accomplished! The reason the U.S. invaded Iraq was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. Mission accomplished! The reason the U.S. gave for going into Vietnam was to stop the spread of Communism. Mission accomplished!

Bush junior’s legacy will be the stripping away of basic human rights, promoting violent knee-jerk reactions based on wisdom like “we’re gonna smoke ‘em out, huhuh”, legalizing torture and kidnapping, allowing unwarranted wire-taps, unprecedented invasion of personal rights (been to the airport lately?), and so on. Thank goodness U.S. citizens aren’t living under some oppressive foreign regime, eh? Mission accomplished!!

Look, Saddam Hussein wasn’t exactly leader of the year but if Iraq didn’t have a bunch of oil he’d still be in power. I can’t imagine how naive you’d have to be to think otherwise, especially considering the amount of evidence and the ever-unfolding web of lies and deceits put into place by George and his face-shooting cronies. It’s why Saddam’s forces set all the oil fields on fire as they retreated, and it’s exactly why the U.S. hasn’t gotten involved in actually helping people in places like Congo, Rwanda, Bosnia, etc. There are plenty of awful conflicts happening around the globe right now – how come neither the U.S. not Canada are there? (The U.N. doesn’t count. In any way.)

The answer is simple: there’s nothing there that America or Canada can use. It’s true that Palestinian fighters are calling for the destruction of Israel, and I can’t defend that. It won’t solve the situation (has it solved anything so far?), and will accomplish exactly nothing. Worse, in fact. But at least Hamas is honest about it, something our own government is highly allergic to.

—

Here are some clumsily strung-together videos of yesterday’s demonstration. The procession of about 1,500 people (including a good number of Jews and Israelis), went from the Israeli consulate at 180 Bloor Street West, down Queen’s Park, along College, and down Yonge where the march terminated at Yonge-Dundas Square where Naomi Klein concluded the protest with a speech.

Apologies for the crapiness on this last video; it’s a combination of amateur videography and inexperienced editing. I’ll get better, I promise!

Share / save this post

The police are always giving the same message, if you break the law, be prepared to be prosecuted for it. There’s no excuse for something like this [recent G20-related vandalism]. People can… the legal right to protest is there in Canada, the freedom of speech is there, you can say what you want, you can march, you can do those things, but as soon as you cross that line, police are going to have to deal with you.

There you have it, terse and policey. At this point the details of the police plan, and that line being alluded to, are probably already out there although no one really has much info otherwise. Hopefully this doesn’t come as a big surprise to anyone.

By the way, did I wish you a happy Friday yet?

Share / save this post

Which begs the question… why? Video conferencing has reached a point where it can be done easily and inexpensively that certainly wouldn’t cost taxpayers a billion dollars. What about having one location in which it’s always held? That would make things easier to secure no?

Ultimately the reason for the budget is because Canada doesn’t want to be the country where one of these elected officials die in because of some overzealous protester.

Which leads to the unveiling of today’s new police toys. 4 LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) units. And LRAD is basically a loudspeaker that shoots a deafening (135-150 decibel) wave of sound at people. The threshold for pain that you an I can handle is about 130db. To put it in perspective, these LRADs put out the same noise as a Jet fighter. (Oh and sustained 80db+ and you risk permanent ear damage).

After the break you’ll find a video of LRADs in action as well as something else I’m trying to get working for the G20!

While covering the event I want to also bring the event to you live, which gives me two options right now… live feed everything from my phone which is the plan B because I know it works. Plan A is to find some better equipment obviously. If you have any suggestions, please leave them here.

While a live stream won’t have the same HD shots I’ll be able to get with my camcorders, they will allow you to tune in anytime and see what’s going on live.

As it stands right now, this will be an exclusive to Toronto City Life and to my site as well. May change slightly if a company with a live streaming solution wants me to cover it for them.

PS. If you want to send me some good ear plugs, I wouldn’t mind that either!
PPS. Will have an interview with a Toronto artist who’s shared with the stage with Wu Tang and Sean Paul and has a new album coming out on June 1st! So stay tuned.

Share / save this post

Share / save this post

The G20 is a meeting of the 20 biggest world economies to talk world issues. Yes, that’s an over simplification of what they actually do, but there’s enough information available on the internet to get more details for yourself about what they do.

What you might not know, is how much the G20 summit will change Toronto leading up to it and during the meetings. Downtown will be pretty locked down the weeks leading up to the meeting and during the meeting it will be unfriendly.

Maybe that’s an understatement…

So let’s rattle off a few things…
Outer Fence will consist of a jersey barrier (which is those cement dividers they use on highways) and also a 10 feet chain link fence. This block is going to be put up 3 weeks (Yes, I said THREE), prior to the meetings.

There will be an internal fence with 4 meter high chain link as well. The exact location of that is unconfirmed until likely the day before. But I’ve given my ‘best guess’ on the map below.

Trinity Bellwoods (not on the map) was originally slated to be the designated ‘Free Speech’ zone, but after much citizen complaint, it’s been reported that it will be moved to Queens Park.

Other things… about delays and what to expect… trust me, read it!

As of today, restaurant owners have been told they need to close up patios, remove chairs, remove fencing 3 weeks prior to the meeting.

Expect city officials to start removing trash cans and benches. Why? These can be used as weapons.

The PATH will be closed from Bay to Royal York.

There will be about 83 motorcades (10-50 cars each), including decoy motorcades.

Prescreen accreditation of Pedestrian and Vehicle traffic will be required. So if you live in the area, expect this.

The Gardiner Expressway will be affected.

GO Trains will experience interruptions and delays.

Police have hired a video camera company to install hundreds of high definition cameras in the downtown core. Their locations unspecified, but clearly will be everywhere.

Accessing buildings downtown will require access cards.

Your building (work, living) may be locked down (no in/out) temporarily or permanently.

Random Searches by Police will be excecuted.

United States Marines will have air support (helicopters, fighter jets) in the air, or on standby.

10,000+ Police, Military and Private Security will be in charge of security. Expect tensions to run high.

Police are expecting to require the use of Tear Gas and Rubber Bullets. If you’re wearing a gas mask, or a disguise you will be arrested. This goes in addition to obvious full riot gear, shields and batons.

To get an idea of what to expect, here’s some video from Pittsburgh, the last location for the G20 meetings (warning, it’s not friendly.)

Now, I’m not going to comment on whether the G20 is good or not, or whether the protesters are right or wrong, or if the police use excessive force or not. You’re free to make your own decisions. (I do think the “Black Bloc” which are anarchist protesters are wrong though. And you can be sure they’ll be at these meetings.)

What I do want to convey to you is be careful! If you’re going to protest, be careful. If you’re just to observe, expect to be considered a protester. If things get violent, expect to be hit, tear gassed or arrested. These G20 meetings have a way to suspending human rights for the duration…

Regardless of all this, I’ll be going down there with my video cameras to get both TCL and my own blog, some exclusive video. I know people who were students in Pittsburgh who had their cameras taken and destroyed in front of them… so while I want to get some good footage, I will do my best to not get myself into any kind of danger. Heh, the police being my worry for danger… Irony.

Should make for some interesting viewing/blogging!

Oh, and thanks for having me Patrick and readers, looking forward to getting to know you all (seeing as I may need a “Free Zach” rally if I get arrested haha.)

Share / save this post

Anyhow, I believe I’m in one of those moods today. It was one of those lurching days in which clarity decides to rear its ugly head – a light was cast on a vexing situation that’s been festering on my mind for a few months and – to be blunt – both shocked and pissed me right off. I probably shouldn’t go into detail because I have a feeling I’ll be wielding the business end of legal prosecution pretty soon; I can think of no other word than fraud, or something very close to it. Certainly some very odd dealings that I just can’t explain. You know? Stuff just doesn’t add up, like 1 and 1 is supposed to equal FF in hexadecimal. Yeah, that’s not even the same numbering system.

There are lots of fiddly little details that, hopefully, I’ll be able to share once it’s all done with. I think they’d make good reading if you have a few minutes on the shitter (get a netbook—best investment ever ). However, droning on about some vague misdoing is boring my tits off and I know the details, so let’s let’er rest a while there.

Besides, some things don’t need to be discussed because they kinda stare you in the face, you know?

Take the story about a young mother who was murdered in her car while tending to her two-year-old daughter. Yep, no way to put a frilly ribbon on that story; shot right in front of her little girl. The story is tragic no matter how you spin it; that kid’s just been handed a life sentence. Who’d argue with that?

But just beneath the surface there are things that aren’t quite right.

To begin with, Detective Sergeant Pauline Gray is quoted as saying, “I think the careful thing is not to look for a reason, because as far as I’m concerned, there is no reason.”

Did I read that right? The careful thing is not to investigate the motive because there isn’t one? Okay, well, for an officer to be making extrajudicial pronouncements at a press conference probably isn’t a great idea, but it also shows that the good Detective has been compromised. Clearly am emotional basket case. Hey, can’t blame her, but don’t we owe the mother and kid a proper, thorough, and unbiased investigation? The careful thing to do is to look for a reason, because as far as I’m concerned, there’s always a reason. I believe that’s the difference between first and second-degree murder — planning requires a purpose, or a reason, as they call it out west.

I also subscribe to Occam’s Razor which bluntly states that the simplest and most direct explanation is usually the correct one. Don’t over-complicate shit, I believe, is the original expression. If she had a jilted ex-husband, my odds are on him. But there’s another possibility; please allow me to connect a few dots…

She’s from Columbia where her parents still live. Upon moving to Toronto, she started a successful container shipping company. Initially she was sending a container or two a year (was that enough to live on?), but recently business had picked up to the sum of one or two per month. To and from South American countries. Do we need the white connecting lines here?

Okay, that’s just rampant coke-fuelled speculation, but any investigator worth their salt should be knee-deep in blow by now. To dismiss some possibilities because they may harm the reputation of the deceased person does them a disservice. And the little girl too. Even if some dark details are revealed, who knows what the circumstances were around those details?

If you’re a keener and read the story, you’ll note that I took most of the drug runner scenario from the Star piece. Almost verbatim, except that I took out a bunch of expletives. I still don’t know why The Star swears so much, it’s really off-putting. But the facts remain about the same. Possibly manufactured for my benefit. However, I still stand by my argument that a thorough and unbiased lookseeinto is the way to go.

It’s the same with the McCormack case. That’s the former police chief’s son (and also a cop), accused of pulling money from club and bar owners in exchange for favours. Hehe, no, not sexual ones. Although, you know, I shouldn’t judge … who knows? Definitely the accusation of money exchanging hands for services of some sort (no, no jokes about hand services, that’d be crude and never proven in a court of law). Impropriety on the one side, corruption on the other, but either way it was looking meaty.

I guess we’ll never know for sure how meaty because the case was thrown out of court for taking too long. If proceedings extend for five years, I believe, the court is obliged to remove them from before its just gaze. “And don’t let the door hit you on the way outtay”, in Latin.

Wow, my head’s really gone over to the lawyer side of the force. Maybe I’ve been spending my time in that headspace for too long and now I just zero in on any little litigious thing I see. I probably just need a good sleep – I mean, who knows, maybe I’ll dream up an out of court settlement. Or maybe cast a dark habeas corpus upon them from my slumber — the sleeping subconscious mind has mysterious powers, possibly even occult. I guess that path will be determined by my mood. Prince or Princess Bride?

Share / save this post

The scandal centers mostly around allegations of abuse and mistreatment of the animals in the King Street shelter:

You know, all the sad-eyed kitties and puppies that make me wanna punch whoever hurts them in the friggin’ face!! How does that feel, huh?! HUH?!

*breathe deep*

*exhale slowly*

…

Everything’s good!

So yeah, I really don’t approve of that kind of behaviour. But Bill brought up a good point, many of these animals are brought to the shelter in this state. Of course some of them will look abused, that’s why they’re here. And yes, sadly, some of them die or have to be put down because their injuries are too serious. The shelter makes no secret of this:

However, three things have come together that make me look at the situation with a whole lotta suspicion.

First is my own, albeit single, interaction with the Humane Society in Durham. The facilities were nice, the animals healthy and clean, so nothing bothered me on that end. But the staff, I dunno, didn’t really seem to care a whole lot about animals. And I thought it was odd that they seemed to be dissuading me from taking home a cat: “that one’s not very friendly, that one’s very sick, she’s blind and tends to break stuff, he’s had the most vile diarrhea for months…” In some cases, the conditions for adopting a pet seemed a bit steep: no going outside, no interactions with other animals going outside, no other animals altogether, no flats, no rural homes, no children, no balconies, and a few other things.

Outside, someone claiming to be an employee (so it’s definitely true), told me that the shelter’s funding is based partially on how many animals it has to support. That would explain why they’d want to hold on to the animals, the old use-it-or-lose-it funding model. That would also explain why the King Street Humane Society would be so reluctant to put down animals, even if those animals have no option but to die slow, painful deaths.

I thought about the possibility of altruistic motives, you know: rover’s brought in, hurt, bad, barely breathing — mouth-to-snout resuscitation — charge paddles! CLEAR! … AGAIN! CLEAR!! … LIVE DAMN YOU!! LIVE!! Rover coughs, rolls over, and with the slightest wag of his tail whispers, “I’ve arways roved you.” I know, it’s a romantic notion but I guess it’s possible. But then I read about the mummified cat they found in a trap in the ceiling of the shelter. Police came in, arrested some of the staff, documented the place for evidence, and later came back to go through it in detail. That’s when the mummy cat was found. Wasn’t a cool out-for-revenge kind of mummy cat either, literally just skin and bones; must’ve starved in there. That’s not so altruistic.

And that’s the another thing…

I can’t imagine that the police would mount an operation so publicly, and that involved a whole organization, unless they felt pretty confident that they had some pretty darn good evidence. This story’s been floating around for the better part of a week and up until the arrests, these accusations had been around for a while before that.

"No sir, i especially don't like it."

This story must be absolute gold to the news people. Everyone and their horse is being interviewed about how shocked and sickened they are about all this, and the arrests of the shelter’s staff were out in broad daylight with the media camped out right across the street.

And I’m going to give the cops some credit and assume that they must’ve known this would happen. So I’d imagine they’d take more than a few precautions before busting down the doors – things like making sure they weren’t just arresting people on a hunch, stuff like that.

Okay, and finally, I had to ask Ollie. I mean, if anyone would have insight into this situation, it’d be a cat, no? With his natural clairvoyance and his own personal reasons for wanting to find answers, it was really a no-brainer.

After once again skipping his dinner, I added a “Y” and a “N” on the Ouija board I’d used previously, and placing some psychic motivators on them, simply asked Ollie if he thought if the people currently being charged with these crimes would be found guilty of them.

He hesitated for a bit, seemed confused. Then he wandered over to the “N” pile, sniffed it, and crunched on a pellet. Half of it fell out of his mouth but he didn’t bother going after it. I think what he was trying to get across was to indicate the course of the trial. Initially the defendants would get a nibble of innocence, for a while it’ll look like they’ll be walking out of there free.

Gut then Ollie ambled over to the “Y” pile and dug in. Clearly this cat has an appetite for justice! The interpretation: after a brief respite, the drooling jaws of the courts will come down on our defendants.

Bill Carroll was right to hold back on condemning anyone in this case, but obviously the time has now come for the condemnations to start flying. I believe my own conclusions have some merit, but if Ollie says they staff are guilty, that pretty much clinches it for me. I’ve never had a problem with his predictions before!

Share / save this post

Consider this, for example:

Awww. You see Santa’s Workshop, a few rosy-cheeked, satisfied elves sitting outside with the happy labours of the year past, some cute houses topped with fluffy snow and powdered sugar. Merry Christmas, kids!

From another angle, this is Santa’s Sweatshop, miserly and terribly underdressed children cast outside their warm shelters in the middle of a cold Siberian winter, no doubt for under-producing for the “jolly old elf” (who’s probably enjoying himself a back-alley rub-and-tug somewhere in Bangkok). Merry freakin’ Christmas, kids.

At this point, some parents may say, “But I’ve taught my kids well. They’ll make the right choices.” I’ve no reason to doubt anyone’s parenting skills, but upbringing is no match for military-style indoctrination. Pretty soon your kid’s goose-stepping down University Avenue with the rest of his comrades:

Still not willing to co-operate? Let’s see how he feels after this:

No? I see; junior likes to play hardball, huh?

That’s right. If they don’t get him one way, it’ll be another. Do you really want your kid playing a tuba? What kind of a horrible parent are you to even consider that question?

And if you think that maybe some discipline might actually be good for your kid, take a moment to consider this: these groups are all about coercion, cohesion, group-think; discipline here is mostly founded on fear and mistrust. They don’t think twice about throwing a few members under the car to preserve the organization:

If, at this point, you still think that attending the parade with your children is acceptable, consider how the police will protect your kids once they’re “in the wild”:

Exactly, not at all. The cops stood there the entire time, not a care on their faces. Smiles, some of them. Instead of doing their jobs and clubbing / shooting / arresting people, they just stood around watching the procession like it was the eleven o’clock news. I think some of them were even drinking some sort of hot chocolate beverage. Drinking. On the job.

I did mention some of these displays were insidious, didn’t I? See if you can spot the hazard in the following scene:

Yes, university-aged girls are dangerous, but I’m talking about something more immediate. Imagine, the moment the pyramid goes up, the sweaty old men come out of the woodwork clutching their malodourous camera phones, flashing yellow smiles, and sporting all sorts of unpleasant stains on their sweatpants.

I’m sorry to have to get so graphic, but it’s important that parents everywhere be aware of what really goes down every year. This is simply no place for kids.

And finally, what about jolly old Saint Nick? What’s his ultimate role in all of this?

I don’t think any secret has ever been made of Santa Claus’ hyper-critical judgment of humanity: rewarding lists of people who fall within his insane definition of “nice”, monitoring those on the “naughty” lists for whom he reserves his own personal retribution. And heaven help you if you don’t accept one of his magnanimous “gifts” come Christmas.

Once again, I can’t stress enough how terribly inappropriate this event is for children. The numerous examples given in these two posts are, I think, sufficient to convey the imminent dangers you’d be placing your children under. Keep them away for all the right reasons.

Plus, they start to get irritatingly loud and underfoot after a couple of hours.

Share / save this post

To begin with, you have strange men winding their way through the audience snapping random pictures of children and posting them on only God-knows what website. That alone should be enough, but there’s much more to be wary of.

Consider the example set by  pre-pubescent delinquents who don’t think twice about defacing public property:

“Welcome Santa” must be kid code for “deliver crack cocaine here”. If only that were the worst of it. What happens when your child learns to steal cars? Driving without a license (and training) not only means a harsher jail sentence, it’s also extremely dangerous:

If you don’t believe me you can ask the cops. There were plenty of them along the parade route, handing out literature to educate the young about the dangers of falling in with the wrong crowd. Why they even allowed kids to attend is beyond me:

Those are just a few of the criminal influences that could befall your child at the Santa Claus Parade. Besides the dangers of running afoul of the law, kids also run the risk of mental / emotional trauma. Those who attended and have a fear of clowns are probably catatonic by now:

Reasonable people would think that inspiring terror on this scale would be enough. They’re just kids, for heaven’s sake! But no, parade organizers had to take it to twisted new heights:

As if fear weren’t enough, bringing children to the event means exposing them to all sorts of filth:

Every cunning device is used to ensure that no child escapes unscathed. For those with more active imaginations, a terrible portrait is carefully painted to resonate with their young minds. Imagine being held fast by a giant, blood-red beast who’s probably already feasted on your friends:

The parade of horrors continues with strange, nightmarish creatures that are neither beast nor man, but some ghoulish mixture of both:

Unfortunately I’ve run out of space in this post, but sufficed to say that the hazards lurking about the Santa Claus parade are many, some much more insidious than what’s shown here. I’ll continue with these tomorrow but if you have a kid or two and are considering a similar event in your home town, I urge you to reconsider. Attending is a first-class ticket to a shattered future. Won’t you please think of the children?

Share / save this post

I will do my duty, sir! Covers at regulation height!

Unfortunately, that never happens. The closest I came was pulling the somewhat ineffectual hood of my anorak over my head as it started to rain. As the excessive flap of the coat blocked most of my vision (either that or walk like a fully extended parachute in the wind), I found myself travelling in a very trance-like state. I could only see maybe one and a half meters in front of me, so I had to assume a certain attitude of resolution. Yes, a knife-wielding maniac may come screaming from an alley, and at that visual distance, I’m fairly certain I’d be dead. I had to resolve to be okay with that.

So I started to think about that vocation thing again. What, you didn’t think I came up with that just to fill up a post, did you? This is real angst! Jeez!

Okay, angsty; something I’d like to get resolved. So I must’ve had that in my sensory deprivation cloak with me on my walk home because suddenly I snapped out of my trance — something told me to look up, and what I saw looked awfully familiar:

Of course! I’ll become a thief!

No, not a common thief; I don’t want to abscond with bananas and gum; an international diamond thief  (I guess I could steal other expensive stuff too). A sophisticated gentleman cat burglar in the style of Cary Grant in “To Catch a Thief”, or  George Clooney in “Ocean’s Eleven”. Well, George Clooney in a few roles, but that one was especially well-suited. Flashy and always well-rested. *two thumbs up*

Oh, you’re probably wondering how I went from a Chinatown supermarket to becoming a thief. Sorry, let me take you back a little earlier in the day.

Over lunch, I read a Star story about a certain Mister David Chen, owner and proprietor of one ultra-ironic Lucky Moose Food Mart (pictured above; “lucky” moose on second floor). He’s being brought up on charges of kidnapping and forcible confinement because he tried to foil another robbery at his store.

The undisputed story goes that the thief was well-known and had stolen stuff from there (and nearby stores), numerous times. So, I guess Mister Chen wasn’t going to stand for it any more and when the thief dropped in to borrow a few other items, Mr. Chen and two buddies chased him down in a van, tossed him in the back, tied him up, and beat the snot out of him. Police found him tied up in some dank corner of Chinatown.

Well, yeah, that kind of is kidnapping. But somewhat understandable, I think. Mister Chen claims (and others corroborate this), that he had requested some sort of assistance from the police, but none was given. The thief was allowed to continue running around stealing stuff even though with his record, he probably shouldn’t have been out of a cell. Or at least some sort of supervised and controlled environment.

Another thing that I think Mister Chen is allowed to have a chafed butt over is the fact that his store is so close to 52 Division. Five minutes by foot, is my estimation.

But I’m not sure if I’d resort to grabbing someone off a street and mashing them up for stealing a few plants. Plus, it’s just so unimaginative. So generally speaking, I can see where the kidnapping and forcible confinement charges come from.

But what hit me over the head in today’s article was the fact the court made a bargain with the thief to testify against the store owner!

Yes – freakin’ – way.

The little scumbag got 30 days instead of 90 (and is apparently right back up to his old tricks), and in a complete reversal of roles, the store owner is now facing some serious charges. He could be put away with the thief’s help!

My idea doesn’t seem so crazy now, does it? As a thief, I could help put away the bad guys I steal from by testifying against them. I’ll hire interns for the beatings. And if I don’t get caught, I get to keep the loot!

Flawless.

I’m even thinking of leaving behind personalized, scented business cards of some sort, bearing a message of regret for their loss, but at least they lost it to the best; or something to that effect.

I’m gonna need a little work. I don’t even know how to properly pick a lock yet! I guess it’s hardcore training from here on in.

But don’t worry, dear reader. I’m keeping TCL in the back pocket. Hey, who knows, maybe it’ll be my daytime cover story. That’d be pretty cool George Clooney cool.

Share / save this post

“Not much. Raped and murdered a couple of women, had a few beers with friends on Saturday night; nothin’ special. You?”

“Oh, you know, same-old same-old. Finally got that raw fecal smell out of the apartment on Sunday; turned out that I hadn’t flushed in three weeks. Can you believe that shit?”

“I hear ya! So, did you read about that guy that got shot…”

It’s the same old boring water-cooler conversation every Monday, more or less. If it’s not about Oprah and her hijinx or the smell of poop in one’s apartment, it’s about the latest homicide in the city. It does seem like someone’s getting shot or stabbed almost every day recently, doesn’t it? In April there were 4 murders in an area stretching from Mississauga to Durham. June’s looking a bit busier so far.

I wonder if Toronto Police will be able to cope. Then again, some old photos I’d seen in the Toronto Archives remind me that men of the Service’s past have done far greater with far less. Submitted for your consideration:

(a lot of photos in this one…

1908

Toronto Police Inspector Gilks. Size 8 in a city of size 9s, croissant aficionado, and hiding something.

1914

North of the city, a determent camp for bad cops. Prisoner 5409, seen here sowing potatoes with wife and daughter. Those are the olden days for ya!

1949

Two officers showcasing the latest uniforms. Note that one is partially smiling, thus happy, while the other is not smiling at all and has quite violently soiled himself, thus unhappy. Thank God for the restraining bands at the knees!

1936

“On the roster today, gentlemen, fellatio! As per our venerable group’s induction rules, these two young gentlemen will now…”

1910

Police Inspector Cronin’s bizarre, inexplicable, toxic, yet oddly hypnotic hairpiece was, most experts agree, the cause of his prolonged constipation. Look at that concentration!

1939

The first and last year in which the facial pole catching event was held. It was determined to be too detrimental to the police population with only half an officer making it to the podium that year, scoring a disappointing bronze.

1927

In the next three years Canada would purchase a second motorcycle (rated for up to 12 officers at a time), to service the western half of the country. It was customary to give the captain (at right), the “swan” perch on the handlebars with the other officers forming a protective cocoon around him.

See all the shit the cops had to put up with? If you weren’t getting your face poled or having to pleasure your commanding officers, you were required to wade around the city in your own filth.

The cops sure have come a long way since then. I think they’re doing a good job for the city at the moment, despite the alarming rise in murder reportage, but I also believe that they could probably be doing more. Just think of their predecessors!

Share / save this post