So whos paying for the added enforcement? Taxpayers? Thats unfortunate if they are because this is nothing but a meeting of world elitists... If they have to have 3 rows of riot police in a perimeter around their meetings then maybe the g-20 should just not exist.

Toronto Star
Post-G20 spin wars
(http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/830793--post-g20-spin-wars)

It is hard to know what’s worse: that Premier Dalton McGuinty’s cabinet secretly approved broader police powers to question and search citizens, or that Police Chief Bill Blair misled Torontonians about the extent of those powers.

All weekend, people were under the impression that if they came within five metres of the G20 security fence, they had to be prepared to provide identification and submit to a police search or face arrest because of a new regulation. Now officials seem almost gleeful in asserting there was never any such rule at all.

The provincial government says the regulation it proclaimed under the Public Works Protection Act applied only inside the security fence and was just a “clarification.”

But when it mattered — that is, when the G20 summit was about to begin — McGuinty called it an “extraordinary measure” and Blair said the “five-metre zone around the fence” is to protect the security barrier.

Inexplicably, police and government officials also now insist that there was no reason for the public to have been confused. If the police chief didn’t understand the powers, how could Torontonians?

It’s more likely that the authorities were content to let people believe the misinformation in the hopes that it would deter potential troublemakers.

Given that the time-limited regulation has already expired — and was not the cause of the troubling mass arrests during the G20 summit — some may be tempted to dismiss it all as a minor communications snafu. But it is not the only example of misleading statements and spin emanating from the chaotic weekend.

On Tuesday, for example, Blair displayed a cache of “weaponry” calling it proof of the “criminal conspiracy” of some protesters. It turned out that many of the items were not G20-related at all.

Meanwhile, the hooligans who vandalized Queen St. have been labelled “terrorists,” and peaceful protesters and onlookers caught up in the police net have been described as “complicit” in the acts of the “mob.”

Reporters questioning the poor conditions in the G20 detention centre were told it wasn’t supposed to be comfortable because “people were brought here for a reason.” But that was not the case for the vast majority of the more than 1,000 who were arrested: more than 80 per cent of them were released with no charges.

Various reasons have been put forward by all three levels of government as to why a public inquiry into the G20 weekend is unnecessary — among them, that no one was killed and the damage from vandalism was relatively minor. But none of that diminishes the fact that McGuinty’s cabinet secretly approved new powers for the police; allowed the police to mislead the public about what powers existed; and more than 1,000 people, most innocent of any crime, were arrested and locked up in steel cages.

Could the city not do some road work in and around the fence during the G20? Nobody was getting close to it and traffic was generally prohibitted. It seems like it would have been a good time to fill in some potholes and the like.

I respect your point of view but I have to disagree. Many activists are trying to sever their moral alliance with the Black Bloc after the fact, portraying themselves as mere innocent victims of a brutal police crackdown. I think that's disingenuous.

The dogmatism, absolutism, and totalitarianism of the rampaging, anarchist thugs found/find refuge within large segments of the protesting, activist community and many non-Black Bloc-ers aided and abetted the rioting. I find that extremely disturbing and, frankly, quite reminiscent of the Brownshirts' position within German society under National Socialism.

Were there police excesses? Probably. But were there any deaths or serious injuries (and was the security perimeter breached)? No. Were there protester excesses? Absolutely. Just take a walk downtown and see for yourself.

I'm not sure how you came to your conclusions unless you are in the inner circles of these organizations. There were quite a number of them with diverse issues, ideologies, christians, muslims, buddhists, communists, libertarians, unionists, socialists, free market capitalists. I live downtown, just outside of the zone, have worked in former totalitarian countries where democracy is only a facade. Oddly enough, avoiding the fence and the cops even just going the nearest open grocery felt just like in those countries. One doesn't really understand what it feels to be free until one is being watched or followed.

*Were there excesses, probably? It was on t.v. And that's what bothered people who may not agree with your interpretation of events.
*But were any deaths or serious injuries etc? The end does not justify means. Moral relativism does not exactly jive with democratic principles.
*Protester excesses? No doubt there were, the mouthy ones, who I'm sure did not earn brownie points from the usually staid, conservative Torontonians. May I add there are idiots and assholes on the streets everyday, including one idiotic driver racing driver down a busy street today.

Without stretching this discussion, why did the ISU not do what they were supposed to do on Saturday, why did they do what they were not supposed to do on Sunday? why did Chief Blair enforced an unenforceable non-existent law? (I don't mean that you have to respond to these questions on behalf of the authorities.)

We're not a monolithic society so there will always be professional or career rabble rousers (like the ninja anarchists), chronic liars (like politicians) and manipulating opportunitists in our midst. Unfortunately, we can't just say off with their heads.

Some friends and I talked about the summit tonight and we all agreed that we heard that the protestors and bystanders were warned to leave the area several times prior to the police finally moving in.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. My friends and I all knew the risks with the summit and being too close to protestors and the cops. We all knew this. There is no way that anyone in this city last weekend, was unaware of the risks of being anywhere near the protests and the possibility of officers moving in.

And I listened to several radio talk show hosts talking about how the media knew they weren't immune and recieved the same warnings as the public. Go down there and get too close or defy the cops and you're subject to the same treatment. Some of these journalists along some protestors and bystanders have acted like prima donnas and obivously thought they were untouchable.

I for one do not believe that the police just rushed in, unannounced, unprovoked and starting beating people senseless, indescriminately.

Not with cameras, witnesses and media watching. The reason I tend to believe the police over the allegations of those questioned and arrested is from witnessing so many people over the years, flaunting authority, refusal to comply with warnings and advisorys and instigating confrontations with officers and security.

I've seen this kind of defiance with security at clubs with people defying and taunting security and then force has to be used or pleading with bystanders to stand back or leave and people simply wouldn't listen. I've seen people spit in the faces of doormen trying to break up a fight or preventing someone from entering. I've seen so much over the years.

I've seen people insult and use vulgar language with officers and actually threaten lawsuits if the officer dared to arrest them. People have unbeliable gall now and it comes from living in a society where they've been allowed to do virtually whatever they feel like and when someone finally says "no", they throw temper tantrums and play the victem card.

Our society has become so spoiled and pampered that people think any attempt to hold them accountable is a human rights violation and is often met with defiance and refusal to admit any wrongdoing or taking personal responsibility.

^^ And throw self-righteousness and self-entitlement into the mix -- i.e. 'We will not tell others how to resist'; 'We embrace a diversity of direct-action strategies'; 'Breaking windows creates space for dialogue'; 'Not in our name'; 'G-H8'; 'I'm a vegan so I didn't eat for hours'; 'They only gave me two cheese sandwiches and a bottle of water'; 'Why are you closed? We want to shop!' -- and you got the makings of what went down last weekend.

I'm not sure how you came to your conclusions unless you are in the inner circles of these organizations.

No need to be in their inner circle. Just read their statements in the run-up to and during the summit. Their attitude/strategy was one of 'hands-off' at best, justification at worst.

There were quite a number of them with diverse issues, ideologies, christians, muslims, buddhists, communists, libertarians, unionists, socialists, free market capitalists.

Interesting that absent from your list are the Jews. Certainly an innocent oversight yet revealing nonetheless. Makes sense really, given the general climate on the Left these days.

One doesn't really understand what it feels to be free until one is being watched or followed.

As a gay man, I most definitely know the feeling of being watched and followed. Maybe kids from the suburbs, who like to play 'radical' during their university years, experienced it for the first time last weekend. Lucky for them, and despite their hysterics, we do, in fact, live in a free society and their inconvenience was temporary at best and under extraordinary circumstances. Again, nobody died. Nobody was seriously injured. Most were released from custody within 24 hours or less.

Moral relativism does not exactly jive with democratic principles.

No. Moral absolutism does not jive with democratic principals, which is why the Left is so prone to totalitarianism and why they reserve their moral relativism for some of the most excessive ideologies the world has even known -- Stalinism, Maoism, Islamism, even ultra-nationalism.

May I add there are idiots and assholes on the streets everyday, including one idiotic driver racing driver down a busy street today.

But those a**holes aren't ideological extremists. They don't drive like idiots as part of an anti-colonialist, anti-capitalist agenda, supported by a large group of their peers. Big difference.

We're not a monolithic society so there will always be professional or career rabble rousers (like the ninja anarchists), chronic liars (like politicians) and manipulating opportunitists in our midst. Unfortunately, we can't just say off with their heads.

And last weekend, the chronic liars and manipulating opportunists were not just inside the security perimeter. They were also protesting in the streets.

You see, the Left has no monopoly on morality and justice. Anti-racism is often racist and anti-poverty is often exploitative. This is what I've been driving at in all my previous posts in this thread. It is possible for the Left to be immoral. It is possible for the Left to be unjust. Really. I'm serious.

Latest Angus Reid Poll

Respondents were asked about their feelings about the demonstrations that took place in Toronto during the G20 summit.

Two-thirds of Canadians (69%) are disgusted, 59 per cent are ashamed, 57 per cent are angry, and 54 per cent are sad. In Toronto, the proportion of respondents who reported negative feelings was higher (Disgust 81%, Anger 74%, Sadness 65%, Shame 61%).

When asked about the reaction of the police in Toronto to the demonstrations, two-thirds of Canadians (66%) and three-in-four Torontonians (73%) believe it was justified.

http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/2010.07.01_Summits_CAN.pdf

Way to generalise, not eveyone who is outraged by police tactics is anti-capitalist (I certainly am not)!! Sure some on the left can be 'racist and exploitive' just as the police can be provocative and vindicative. The more videos I watch the clearer it is to me that the police violence against PEACEFUL protestors was a tactic used to justify the over 1 billion dollars security price tag. What a joke!!

Personally, I want to go in Toronto. I want to invest some financial in nature. :D