Anthony Rota on a G20 Public Inquiry

On July 3, 2010, I emailed Anthony Rota to find out whether he would support calls for a public inquiry into police conduct and tactics at the G20 Summit in Toronto. My specific question was this: “Would you support calls for a public inquiry into police tactics used at the G20 summit last weekend in Toronto? Why or why not?”

I was very curious about why the Liberal party seems to be dragging its feet on this issue for a couple of reasons: first, since the police investigation into police tactics is patently ridiculous, an inquiry is needed, and second, it is a great opportunity to score political points against the Conservatives who arranged this disaster.

1 billion dollars was spent on security, and for some reason the 20000 cops that came included in that questionable deal could not manage to interrupt 100 black bloc protesters while they smashed windows on Bay St. for over an hour. This fact bears repetition: 20000 police could not manage to confront 100 identifiable vandals (they wore a uniform after all) while they spent approximately one whole hour smashing windows. By way of explanation, the police have placed the blame at the feet of peaceful protestors for refusing to help apprehend the perpetrators.

Although the police failed to confront the vandals during acts of vandalism, they sure did confront the peaceful protesters afterwards. There is little doubt that the rights of Canadian citizens were not respected during the protests.

Tasers, tear gas, and clubs were used against peaceful protesters. People were denied their right to assembly, their right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, and their right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. People were arrested for “Breach of the Peace” if they refused police orders to cease their protest in public space, most of those were later released without charge. Here’s the rationale: Canadians have the right of assembly, however, during an assembly, if instructed to stop assembling, it is a breach of the peace to disobey. Since the police clearly respect our right to assemble… but not our right to remain assembled for more than one instant, we need an inquiry.

So, what does Anthony Rota think?

Today, I received my response. It is as follows: ““There’s a few questions that I’d like to see answered, and I really think it should come up before a public inquiry. What security advice did the government consider before moving the summit to Toronto? Why did they ignore advice to hold the event at the Canadian National Exhibition? It would have been safer there, and less of a risk. Who designed and approved the security plan and its astronomical pricetag? A billion dollars is a ridiculous price tag, there are so many more things that could have been done with that money. Concerning the police, who was ultimately giving the security commands? Were they coming from the Prime Minister’s office? Or were they coming from somewhere else?  The other question that has to be looked at is whether anyone on the political side got involved, either indirectly or directly through the Prime Minister’s office. There were a lot of decisions made during the operation of the summit, and I’d like to know where those decisions were based; whether they were in the Privy Council Office, the PMO or somewhere else. These are all things that have to be looked at and considered when we’re looking at what happened in Toronto during the G20.”

Anthony Rota’s response to my question did not answer my question. He wants an inquiry, but it seems as though the reason he would support an inquiry would be strictly to hang some of the G20 mess around Stephen Harper’s neck like a toilet seat. The inquiry that Mr. Rota would like to see, would have nothing to do with whether the rights of Canadians were violated, and whether the conduct of police was appropriate.

Clearly this is a tricky political issue. Shortly after the summit, according to a poll in the Toronto Star, two thirds of Canadians supported the use of force by police against protesters. Perhaps that is because the news coverage was dominated by images of burning police cars. In all of the mainstream media coverage, no one asked why police left cars right in the path of protesters, and then abandoned them. We need an inquiry to find out if this was a deliberate public relations tactic. If it was, it was very effective. They even waited for over an hour to attempt to put them out, plenty of time for every one to get their photo op with the burning cars.

If a politician is being governed by polls and not ideals, it would be difficult to support an inquiry that has, as part of its objective, to investigate the police. This might be a good time to just do what is right regardless of what the polls say. If people were exposed to the information required to arrive at an informed viewpoint on this issue, those polls might change.

Earlier this week 40 law professors in Canada signed an open letter calling for a public inquiry into conduct of police at the G20 Summit. Here is an excerpt:

“In our capacities as law professors and attorneys, but especially as citizens, we are extremely concerned about the reports of widespread infringements of civil liberties allegedly perpetrated by members of the ISU and urge you to initiate an independent inquiry into the searches, seizures, and arrests effected in the context of the G20 demonstrations, as well as the conditions of detention of those arrested.

Unfortunately, the mass arrests effected during the G20 appear to be part of a trend towards the criminalization of dissent in Canada.

Canadian police forces resort increasingly to mass arrests during political demonstrations, only to release the protestors – many of them without charge – after the protested event. Though the police have the responsibility of arresting individuals directly engaged in property damage (whether during a protest or not), this in no way justifies recourse to mass arrests.

This tactic is not only a clear infringement of the freedoms of opinion, expression, association and assembly, but also a form of arbitrary detention that violates the presumption of innocence.”

40 law professors in this country think that not only were rights violated, but that these violations are a part of a trend toward criminalizing dissent.

When our rights are at stake, politics should take a back seat. We need an inquiry and it needs to take a hard look at what the cops did at the G20 protests.

Tony Loeffen