Monday, July 12, 2010

My initial theory on what happened in the back rooms at the #G20

There haven't been inquiries yet, so we're left to draw our own conclusions based on the evidence we have. In some cases there isn't a ton of evidence of any kind to deal with. Based on what we do know though, and on the apparent chain of command confusion surrounding the G20 I'd like to put forward a somewhat educated guess as to what might have happened.

When the black bloc riot started downtown police did nothing at all about it. What we have heard was that the police were concerned that some of the black bloc may have had firearms and going after them would have increased the risk and that the police's top priority was protecting the fence surrounding the G20 conference itself.

On examination neither of these excuses make much sense. First if police were concerned that the black bloc had guns then they did exactly the wrong thing. If you believe you are dealing with armed people you don't allow them to run around downtown doing as they please. Second, with 20,000 security personnel the police should have had no trouble guarding the fence and going after the 100 or so black bloc protesters.

Going back to the chain of command questions I'm guessing that after the smoke had cleared (within a few hours) that someone was angry about the decision not to pursue the black bloc. The government, after all, had spent 1 billion on security and when a security issue arose there was no response.

So the word went out that the "black bloc was hiding inside the peaceful protests" - I don't doubt that this is what line officers were told. They were also likely told something like "getting these people is a priority, so err on the side of arresting too many - everyone with a backpack or a bag of any kind is a suspect, anyone with a bandana is a suspect, anyone from Quebec or anyone from outside Canada is a suspect, anyone wearing black is a suspect, and if in doubt arrest." They weren't, I don't think, told this because it was true but because a large number of arrests (an all time record for Canada in fact) would make it look like the billion dollar security effort was effective, by the time all of the outcomes of the arrests were known (by the time the trials were over) the public would have forgotten about it. In the public mind the police had gotten the 'terrorists.'

That, at least to me, seems to match the way things work in Canadian politics at the moment, at least since Harper took over. It would explain everything that happened, including why police were so overly aggressive and why no one at a political level wants to talk about it.

I may have to amend this as more information comes out but without a full, independent public inquiry we are forced to draw our own conclusions so it is time to start putting the pieces together ourselves.

6 comments:

James D. Schwartz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James D. Schwartz said...

My initial theory is a bit different than yours. This is based on me being there, plus videos I've seen and news reports I've read.

- I believe the police officers were told not to pursue the vandal protesters at first. The Toronto Sun even reported that officers who wanted to make arrests on Saturday were ordered not to.
- I believe the police intentionally left their cruisers in key locations knowing that they would be torched.
- I also believe the fire trucks were told not to come so that the media would have time to get full videos of the police cars burning.
- I believe this was all planned prior to the G20 meeting by the ISU as part of their strategy to a) deflect attention away from the G20 fence b) Justify the costs and c) Shut down and intimidate peaceful protesters by unlawful searches, detainment and arrests

And the police succeeded in keeping the leaders safe. They did their job.

But this "victory" came at the sacrifice of our civil rights, and mistreatment of hundreds of peaceful protesters.

I honestly believe they could have achieved their goal without sacrificing our rights. But the government didn't want to take that chance.

Justin Beach said...

Whether or not there were 'agents provocateur' really doesn't matter in the least - the anarchists were there and as long as they are the police done need to be involved - the effect is the same. I also think you give Harper and co too much credit. They are not terribly smart, or clever and get caught regularly - the problem is that the people who vote conservative will believe pretty much anything he says, even if all the evidence points in the other direction.

James D. Schwartz said...

I agree that it doesn't matter if there were agent provocateurs or not - and if you read my comment I didn't speculate one way or another.

What I'm suggesting is that before the G20 started, the ISU planned to let the vandalism happen - they planned to let a couple police cars get torched, and they knew they would come back with a heavy hand - but not until after the media was flooded with images of broken windows and burning police cars.

The reason I think it doesn't matter if there were agent provocateurs or not is because those police cars would have burned either way. There were clearly some passionate people who felt justified in trashing the city to protest the injustices brought on by the G20 governments.

My personal opinion is that the property damage played right into the hand of the police and only helped the rest of the country to sympathize with the actions of the government.

James D. Schwartz said...

Also, I'm not suggesting that Harper had some elaborate plan to orchestrate a huge diversion (e.g. 9/11 conspiracy theories).

I'm suggesting that the police higher-ups simply made a decision to appear to be restrained at first until after all the damage was caused, and then they would be ordered to take action and use the vandalism as the reason for their actions.

It doesn't take a PhD to execute on this strategy. I think the hardest part of the weekend for the police would have been the logistics (communications and busing officers to different locations in the city).

Oemissions said...

If they planned to let the vandalism happen, then insurances and those businesses should be after the planners. Sue 'em.

Post a Comment