Sunday, June 27, 2010

Jonathan Kay on the extraordinary professionalism of Toronto’s G20 police force | Full Comment | National Post

Jonathan Kay on the extraordinary professionalism of Toronto’s G20 police force | Full Comment | National Post
This was the moment I realized that all the hundreds of millions spent on security for the G8/G20 event probably were worth it. Here was a crowd ready to go on the rampage after a burning cop car put the evening’s rush into their veins. Yet such was the manpower at the police’s disposal that they were able to get about 200 fully suited-up men and women staring the rabble down within minutes.
In riot situations, small groups of police often start smashing heads, and even shooting people, when they fear that they are surrounded, or that their numbers are inadequate to hold a particular intersection or barricade. Demonstrators, likewise, will take on the police if they think they have the body count to prevail. But at Queen and Spadina, the police instantly had the numbers to advance on the intersection with confidence. Everyone in the agitators’ ranks knew the score as well. Which is why there was no real confrontation, just a stare-down.
We’ve heard a lot of talk in the run-up to this event about the “intimidating” police presence. Well guess what: That “intimidation” prevented a potentially deadly confrontation at Queen and Spadina last night. It also saved an untold number of innocent storeowners from having their windows smashed and their inventory looted. The purpose of deploying legions of “intimidating” cops on the street isn’t to win a fight against protestors: It’s to make sure a fight never happens in the first place.
Speaking of which: Doesn’t it tell us something that, for all the images of violence displayed on TV screens over the last half day, not a single person seems to have suffered any sort of serious injury? On the left-wing web site, the only photo of an injured protestor the editors could find (as of 2:30am Sunday morning) shows someone lifting a band-aid to reveal a mildly scraped thigh.So...
Yup. The terrorists/protestors made the case for the investment.

If it weren't for the terrorists/protestors and their violence and destruction, there wouldn't have been any need. But the need is greater than ever, especially when you add the threat posed by the real, hardcore terrorists, like the Al Qaeda folks...

You know, if there hadn't been so much security spending and such, and there was a 9/11-style attack that killed thousands, well, don't you think the Left and the Old Media would blame PM Harper for what happened, saying that they "didn't invest enough in the safety of the People, and were too cheap"?

No injuries. Lots of Kristallnacht-esque damage, but no real injuries. Just some old pussy Prog whining and crying about a little scrape. Kind of reminds me of the NDP's Svend "Jewel Thief" Robinson getting all worked up about his pants being ruined and threatening to sue.

Hmm. You know, the way things are going in America under the Obamacrat Reich, does one not think that there'd have been lax security if the summits were held in an American city? Of course there'd be lax security... on purpose, by design. Because the Obamacracy lives for crises, whether they be accidental or manmade by whomever. They use crises as opportunities to impose more national socialism and impose draconian rights-robbing legislation as a "fix" for the problem...


MikeAdamson said...

I watched the tv coverage with my kids and was generally impressed with the police performance although I'd have be surprised if they were anything short of professional. The situation afforded us a useful opportunity for dialogue...should people be demonstrating, what's appropriate demonstrating and what isn't, how should police respond,etc.

It's good to live in a country that recognises individual rights and the need for social order and does a pretty fair job of balancing them IMO...we're pretty lucky.

∞ ≠ ø said...

...a useful opportunity for dialogue... Mike, do you tiptoe through the tulips or what? Now I'm sorry but that was just plain whifty.

should people be demonstrating.. Prehaps, if they have a point and NOT just for the sake of it or because THEY ARE BEING PAID TO.

what's appropriate... civil behavior

what's not.. throwing stones, breaking stuff, yelling and writing words like "f__k" on your signs, disrupting areas outside your permit...

the police should maintain order, provide safety, enforce the terms of the permit, and beat the fecking shite out of vandals.

I hope this dialogue has been helpful.

P.S. you are now Soda Man Mike.
No more Kool-aid for you.

MikeAdamson said...

With the exception of the fecking shite I pretty much agree with your comments although I don't know what whifty it code for reasonable?

∞ ≠ ø said...

Whifty or wifty: Not well defined in urban dictionary:

In general: un-manly, not necessarily gay, but more like if I characterized it as light beer.

And see.. there you go again.. why not? There needs to be a sense of ire both in political writing and actual handling of these hoodlums. The law of both our lands allows for protests. That should be respected not spat on. Busting shop windows, burning cars etc. should be met with quick and fairly indiscriminant force.
IMO... we're pretty soft.

P.S. At Fort Getty, the protesters fired first.

MikeAdamson said...

Why not? Because it just gives everybody licence to handle their beefs in an unwhifty fashion...but you knew that already.