So. That happened.

I don't really want to talk about this.






The last picture is from outside the American Embassy on Monday. They had already taken down the barricades, but hadn't yet removed them. (There are two other stacks of fences, outside of the frame.)

I don't really want to talk about this, but feel like I should — it seemed cowardly not to, as though I could pretend it didn't happen if I ignored it. So: it happened. We were far away, not only because it seemed like the prudent thing to do, but because we really couldn't have gotten closer, even if we'd wanted to. They had closed down the subway. Friends who live very near the protest zone were, for all intents and purposes, trapped in their apartment because of the protesters and the road and subway shutdowns.

Everybody seems to be taking sides. I don't think either side is 100%, or even 80%, wrong. I think there are more than two sides. This is what I think:

I think that peaceful protest is a right enshrined in every democracy.

I think that there is absolutely no excuse, ever, for violent protest. (I understand why people would want to smash windows, or rip down signs; I have those urges, but I also know that it's wrong.)

I think that the police have every right to stop violent protesters — or violence, period. That's their job.

I think that the police have no right at all to assume that every protester in a given group will be violent, and to act accordingly.

I think setting cars on fire is pointless and idiotic. It also contributes to global warming.

I think, if someone lobs a canister of tear gas at you, it is perfectly fair to attempt to lob it back.

I think that peaceful protesters who thought that the protest wouldn't turn violent are naive. It's been over 10 years since Seattle. Every single mass protest since then — against the G8, WTO, whatever — has turned violent. Every single one. Why would Toronto be any different?

I think saying that the violent protesters ruined it for everyone is too simplistic. They were marred, maybe, but not ruined. But saying that the violence was justified by the rightness of the protest abdicates responsibility, and that's too simplistic also.

I think that "preventative detention" is just another phrase for "unlawful arrest."

I think that the only allowable instance for a police person to use his or her baton against another person is in self defence. Not preventative self-defence; active self-defence.

I think designating a protest zone, even if it was never officially "guaranteed", and then charging and emptying it using military tactics, is ethically appalling.

I think lying to an entire city population about the police's powers of arrest in order to "keep the criminals out" deprives the citizenry of their rights, including their right to protest. It is also morally wrong and ethically questionable.

I think that any police chief who does not understand the last four points is guilty of a massive and drastic oversight, and I think that that oversight is grounds enough for his resignation. In another century, it would have been trial by ordeal and banishment.