It is never easy to admit fault, but only through acknowledgment of an error can said error be corrected. In Toronto’s G20 summit in 2010 Toronto and other police and RCMP beat up and violated the rights of over 1,500 Canadian citizens. The police became the criminal element. It is only the passing of almost 2 years of time that this wrong is beginning to turn. Maybe.

There is no question that police beat up and arrested innocent Canadian civilians at Toronto’s G20 summit in 2010. Over 1,100 people were arrested, only 30 or so were ever charged, and only a handful were ever convicted of anything. All the rest, were just used as punching bags for the police and politicians. I know not if this was malicious or just benign neglect, but I do know that it was unequivocally illegal and should not have happened in the first place. Blame systemic problems with the chain of command within the political and police system,

More time will need to pass before the acknowledgment of illegality occurs. This one by the Office of the Independent Police Review (OIPRD), as well as the numerous Ontario Ombudsman’s reports is a good first step in the right direction, but Canada has a much farther path to follow. No government, Federal, Provincial nor municipal, has acknowledged that mistakes were made at the Toronto G20 Summit 2010. I hope this acknowledgment will occur in the future, in order to shore up the confidence of the Canadian legal system.

“What occurred over the course of the weekend resulted in the largest mass arrests in Canadian history. These disturbances had a profound impact not only on the citizens of Toronto and Canada generally, but on public confidence in the police as well,” writes Gerry McNeilly, head of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), a citizen agency that today tabled the 300- page systemic review report.

source

More significantly, very few people have been charged with beating up Toronto citizens. I believe that only two officers have been charged to date. All the rest, as well as their superiors that gave them orders, and the politicians that gave the police superiors their orders, have not been charged, and may never be charged. The bigger the crime, the increased prevalence that no one will be held accountable. This seems to be how life rolls, and what I believe will eventually happen.

The wheels of justice may move ever so slowly, but does not touch all Canadian citizens the same. Some are immune to prosecution, and this includes the politicians and the police. Please prove me wrong.

Toronto is a relatively safe city in comparison to other Canadian cities, and much safer than comparably large American cities. Still, there is crime in every area. Criminals have cars and can drive to wherever they want. Low crime areas may even provide an opportunity for criminal acts. There is no place that is safe from all crime. It also stands to reason that the more dense an area’s population, the more crime should be expected.

I have chosen to research Chinese areas in Toronto because I am Chinese, live in Toronto and have an interest in this topic. It is not because I believe Chinese people have more or less a propensity to commit crime. Of course I hope they have less propensity, but realistically, I know this is difficult to prove.

The Toronto Star had published a series of articles on Toronto’s most populous ethnic enclaves. Note that these ethnic enclaves are usually not predominantly one race, but are mixed race. I believe it is natural for a newly landed immigrant to seek out people who share a similar language and culture, because this makes the immigrant more comfortable and eases integration into Canadian life. Actually it preserves their home land culture and diffuses the effect of moving to Canada somewhat.

That being said, in my area of Toronto, with its predominance of Chinese culture, you can live very happily speaking only Mandarin or Cantonese. One can shop for groceries and other products and not speak a word of English. Large big box grocers are slowly converting more signage over to Chinese, as well as hiring more Chinese speaking staff. There is one big box grocer near my house that is predominantly Chinese and is even designed to look like an independent Chinese grocer. A local store from a Canada-wide home renovation chain near my house hires predominantly Chinese speaking staff, though you can also speak to them in English. No matter that these stores and their staff are biased to Chinese speakers, there is no exclusion of other races displayed. I often see Indian, white and black shoppers rubbing elbows with Mainland Chinese shoppers, all without issue. In turn I also visit Indian and Sri Lankan shops where I am the only non-Indian shopper, where all the signs are in Indian, and the staff speak very little English. This is common here in my area of Toronto. Body language and racial tolerance goes a long way for inter-racial communications and social harmony.

Toronto Ethnic Enclaves: TorStar

Focusing on the predominantly Chinese areas of Toronto, by far the largest block is located in Toronto’s north east, in the suburbs of Scarborough and North York (east). This area is generally bordered by Yonge Street to Markham Road, Steeles Avenue to Highway 401. The more east you go in this area, the heavier the concentration of Chinese culture. Often such a concentration of Chinese culture is a shock to people new to the area, but it should not be. I do understand shock from people who have lived in their houses for 30 years and have seen their neighbourhoods become more Chinese with time. Sometimes I do hear the occasional resentment, but this should be expected, as this area 10 years ago was predominantly white. The map below uses the Toronto Star ethnic enclaves map, with a Google map underneath. Note that there is an even larger concentration of Chinese in Markham/Richmond Hill, just north of Scarborough.

Toronto Largest Chinese Community: North York and Scarborough

If you live in this area you should expect a high predominance of Chinese stores, Chinese literature at local public libraries, Chinese kids in elementary and high schools, and generally more Chinese neighbours. If you love Chinese and Asian food, there is plenty to choose and quality and competition is very high. Go to local parks and you will see and hear from Chinese kids talking Chinese to their Chinese parents, though they most often speak English between themselves. Negatively at local schools you should see a generally lower level of English language skill. This area has a large predominance of new immigrants who’s first language is Chinese and not English. English as a Second Language (ESL) classes are very common in almost all schools. I often meet Grandparents who know not a word of English, speak their local dialect of Chinese and struggle to understand my Mandarin, just like if I had met them while in China.

The next important question I asked myself is, how safe are Toronto’s Chinese enclaves, when compared to Toronto? I have taken the Toronto Star’s Ethnic Enclave map and overlayed a Violent Crimes map from the Toronto Police. The Violent crimes map tracks violent crime calls (lighter green means less violent crime calls), shootings (hollow circles) and homicides (circles with dot), Toronto police carding (Field Information Report, or FIRs), all overlayed on a Google map.

Toronto Violent Calls map: Toronto Police Services

Toronto Chinese Neighbourhoods and Violent Crime Rates

From Yonge Street to Brimley falls into the lowest and second lowest violent crime categories. From Brimley to Markham Road falls into the highest of the five violent crime categories, and one of the areas of Toronto where police stop and question citizens the most.

So is living in a predominantly Chinese area safer than other areas? While it is difficult to say, I would guess that yes, it is safer, but not necessarily because Chinese people are less violent than other races. This large Chinese enclave has less population density, being a suburb of Toronto, and therefore should have fewer violent crime, shootings and homicide rates. This is especially true from Yonge Street to Brimley Avenue. Troubling is the area east of Brimley to Markham Road, which has similar densities but some of the highest rates of violence calls, shootings and homicides in Toronto, though from the map most of the shootings and homicides are outside of the Chinese predominant areas. What this means I do not know and will not speculate.

I do not want to necessarily prove that living in Toronto’s largest Chinese enclave is safer than elsewhere in Toronto, but to bring some facts and statistics to light about the area. Where you buy or rent your home is your decision. Ethnic diversity and crime are but two deciding factors to consider. However if you want to live in a predominantly Chinese neighbourhood in Toronto, you now know where to look.

Map of Toronto by Violent Crime, shootings and Homicides. Layered with details from Google Maps.

The original map had very little detail in terms of street names, which made it difficult to find your exact house location. I have added a layer of Google map underneath so you have more landmarks to guide you. Landmarks such as the TTC subway, major streets such as Yonge Street and highways such as the 404 and the Gardner, parks and waterways were all missing, making the map more difficult to use than it should have been. Because the map is so large already I could not clearly include street names. Toronto is quite large.

Field Information Report (FIR) cards are filled out by police on people they randomly stop. Police use this as intelligence gathering.

Officers stop and question people and document who they are with on Field Information Report cards. Personal details, including physical descriptions, are then entered into a huge database, which officers can search later in the aftermath of crimes. More than a million individuals have been documented in the past three years; the number of cards filled out jumped 18 per cent between 2008 and 2011.

Large map, 2.8MB, is large but the detail is required.

>Map of Toronto by Violent Crime, shootings and Homicides. Layered with details from Google Maps.

The Toronto Star also published an interesting map of Total Criminal Charges mapped by patrol zone, but put no street names or landmarks on the map. It was difficult for me to find my neighbourhood without street names. This map displayed criminal charges from 2009 and 2010.

Again I have superimosed a Google map of Toronto on top of the Toronto Star map, making it much easier to find your neighbourhood.

Toronto, Canada, Criminal Charges by area made by police, 2009-2010, TorStar

Large Map, Criminal Charges by Toronto Police, 2009-2010, 2MB. Map is hard to read because it is large and Toronto is large in population.

>Toronto, Canada, Criminal Charges by area made by police, 2009-2010, TorStar

The Criminal Charges map should, in general, correlate with the violent crime map. Where there is higher crime there should be higher criminal charges. A lower violent crime area with higher criminal charges might mean police are overzealous in their efforts, but who can definitively say.

What is their message and why did they choose to dress as clowns? Kids would easily identify them as clowns.

Here is his report, copied below for your reference. I will attempt to explain the actions of the police from a Chinese perspective.

Law in China serves to protect the Chinese government from the people. In this case the law is there to assist the government in routing out an illegal church. Mr. Schiller, by knowing about the meeting and being in attendance of an illegal protest put himself in harm’s way and was therefore participating in an illegal activity. He took photos of the illegal event and of police. Any illegal activity should not be published for others to see. They are illegal.

The fact that Mr. Schiller is a foreigner is of no consequence. Foreign or not, assembly of this illegal church was illegal. The fact that Mr. Schiller was a reporter is of no consequence. The police confiscated his press badge, which serves no purpose in the eyes of the police. All photos of the illegal event were deleted, all photographic equipment confiscated and examined to make sure that the illegal photos were gone. Because the event was illegal, Mr. Schiller was made to sign a document admitting his guilt. This is justice in China. This signed document can be used in the future as legal grounds to deport Mr.Schiller. This is perfectly legal.

The important message to Mr. Schiller is that a reporter can and will be detained and interrogated by police at any illegal event. The police will now watch Mr. Schiller more closely in the future. Further participation in future events can result in deportation. The police can also intimidate Mr. Schiller without any negative repercussions. They are the enforcers of the law on the people and specifically Mr.Schiller.

It matters little that Mr.Schiller’s right to do his job as a reporter was violated. It matters little that China had agreed that reporters should be able to do their job with relative freedom and without trouble from the police. Chinese law is there to protect the government, not the people nor Mr. Schiller. For Mr. Schiller to say he was doing nothing illegal and happened to be there to “see what would happen” holds no logic. While a church gathering in Canada is certainly not illegal, this is obviously untrue in China. Mr. Schiller was forced to sign a document admitting guilt before he was allowed to leave. He was also not given a copy. This allows the Chinese government to write down all the terms to its advantage. Mr. Schiller cannot receive help from a lawyer in this case because does not have the document he signed. This is to the advantage of the Chinese government and this is done on purpose.

It is good that Mr. Schiller was not beaten by police. He should get his press pass back, but should remember that to police the press pass means very little. In the future Mr. Schiller may be tailed and his phone bugged, as has been done with past foreign reporters in China.

China is not Canada. We cannot put our Canadian values onto Beijing and vent indignation when our right to free speech and other human rights are violated. We nor Chinese citizens have none of these rights in China. They simply do not exist today and have never existed in the past. The important take away message here is that the rule of law in China is to protect the Chinese government from the people, not the people from the government. Understand this and you will live better and longer in China.

Note that before Canadians condemn the actions of Beijing police on Mr. Schiller, remember that over 1,100 citizens of Toronto were also arrested, illegally detained and interrogated by Toronto Police during the G20 last summer. Only a handful were ever charged. The remaining 1,093 detainees were all let go without charge. Detainees were denied food and water and basic human rights for up to 48 hours. Peaceful protesters as well as locals walking around their neighborhood got their heads bashed in and bones broken. Today only 2 police officers are charged with any offenses. Toronto police removed their ID tags prior to beating people up. Illegal it was, and they did get away with it. Before we condemn Chinese police we should fix the same problem in our own backyard here in Canada.

I wish Mr. Schiller well and hopes he continues to report on China affairs. His job and his fellow reports have a though act to follow.

BEIJING—He was young, smiling, wearing purple track suit pants.

She was middle-aged — old enough to be his mother — and wore a print jacket, with dark slacks and a white sun hat.

“Are you here for the church service?” the young Chinese man inquired.

Yes she was, the Chinese woman nodded.

“Well you’ll have to register over here,” he said, and pointed off toward a waiting police van.

The woman hesitated for a moment and seemed to totter. Then several men, who also looked like plainclothes police, surrounded her and corralled her toward the van.

Just as she was getting in and about to be driven off, I decided to take a picture.

That’s when police surrounded me.

I was filmed, photographed, asked for my passport with my journalist’s visa, as well as my press card, and handed them over.

All were returned — except for my press card. An officer said, there “might” be a problem with it. No explanation was given.

It was about 8:30 a.m. Beijing time when I arrived in the city’s northwest precincts to see a group of Chinese Christians conduct a planned Sunday service outdoors, in plan view — a rarity in this country.

But followers of Beijing’s Shouwang Church said they had no choice but to worship outdoors since they had been evicted from their rented premises — and blocked from occupying a new site that they’d purchased with the equivalent of $4 million of their own hard-earned money 15 months ago.

The government was “interfering” with their constitutional rights of religious freedom, they claim on their website.

In Chinese terminology Shouwang is an “underground church,” because its 1,000 followers worship without the blessing of the Communist Party government.

The government allows some Christian worship in China — but only churches it approves and oversees.

Still, tens of millions of Chinese Christians daringly worship independently of Communist control, and Shouwang is among them.

“You’ll have to come with us,” a policeman said after I had taken my photo.

“Under what law or regulation are you preventing me from doing my work?” I asked.

“I will tell you,” he said.

“Well I’d like it if you’d told me now,” I replied. “I have the right to do my proper job as a journalist.”

“I will tell you,” he said with greater volume. “Now come with us!”

I was not roughed up, but a group of police held, pulled and “guided” me out from the plaza where the aborted service was supposed to take place. We walked a couple of blocks to a nondescript building and down a grotty stairwell toward a basement room. A suitable table and set of chairs couldn’t be found there, so we headed up and out toward 15 Zhongguancun Rd., a private building with a small security room.

Along the way we passed scores of police, both uniformed and plainclothes who were shooting video of anyone who passed by.

Finally, I was seated in a tiny room, a camera was set up and turned on, one policeman sat at a desk to take notes, another asked questions and a third observed.

I asked if I could tape the interrogation and was told that I could not.

Then, despite having filmed or photographed all of my documents, we began with a review of all of their contents again.

Then I was asked, why did you come here today?

I had heard an event was about to take place, I said, and I wanted to observe it.

How did I know about it, I was asked.

I had read the church’s website, I said.

Did I know it was illegal to interview people without their permission?

I was not interviewing people, I said.

But did I understand that it was illegal to interview people in Beijing without their permission or the permission of the people for whom they work.

I was not interviewing anyone, I repeated, and I would seek clarification from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about its regulations.

At one point I asked one of the police, “Am I being detained?”

No, the officer said, you are not being detained.

Well if that was the case, I said, then I’d be heading off.

It was made plain — in no uncertain terms — that I was not going anywhere.

Well, if I wasn’t being detained, I said, we could take this session across the street to a restaurant and continue it there.

Again, it was made plain: no one would leave the room.

The policeman doing the questioning was wearing an earpiece and communicating with someone off-site who was passing on questions from time to time.

Then the policeman said: We’d like you to delete the photographs you took today.

I had taken several photographs, including of policemen photographing me, and those photographing my documents.

I was not keen to comply. But I also understood that I had none of the rights that I would have in a similar situation in Canada or the United States or any Western country for that matter. In such countries, I wouldn’t expect to be kept in a room in a private building either for showing up at an event and taking a photograph.

I deleted the photographs as the policeman leaned over to verify that they were in fact deleted. And then he demanded that I quickly review all the photographs currently on the camera to reassure him that the photos I had taken Sunday were in fact deleted.

I complied with that demand, too.

When it came time to review the contents of my interrogation, it was read out loud to me and included a phrase that said I took all “legal responsibility” for the contents of the interview — and it was then that my ears really perked up. Everything would have to be reviewed with utmost care.

And so I did for each of the four pages.

The imagined or mistaken part in which the transcribing policeman had me apologizing for doing my job was then deleted. I had not done so and would not do so, I said. And so the detailed review of my “interrogation” proceeded.

Until a fourth policeman showed up and began shouting.

You’re wasting our time, he said. You don’t need to read this back three or four times. This is ridiculous! Ridiculous, he shouted.

It wasn’t in the least ridiculous, I said. If I, as an employee of my company, was to take legal responsibility for the contents of a policeman’s notes, I had a responsibility to take proper care.

This has nothing to do with your company, he shouted. This is about you, he said, waving his finger.

I reviewed the transcription for a final time, and then they asked me to sign the statement.

Will I get a copy for my records, I asked?

No you won’t, the loud speaking policeman said.

“This isn’t bargaining,” he shouted. “You’re not at the market.”

But how can I be expected to sign a statement and not leave with a copy, I asked.

That’s the way it’s done in China, I was told.

Chinese citizens don’t get copies, he said. You’re not getting a copy either.

Then, suddenly, he left the room and returned moments later demanding my camera.

I had deleted the photos, I said, and those deletions were verified.

He didn’t care and grabbed for my camera and there ensued a little tug-of-war.

After a few minutes he said I could remove the battery as well as the disk.

We only want to take a photo of it, he said.

I complied again, but insisted I come with him.

But no, I was told, I would not be allowed to come with him.

The camera was returned in a few minutes. Whether anything odd was done with it, I can’t say.

But after complying with all the requests, I was informed I’d be leaving without my government-issued press card.

I called the Foreign Ministry and spoke with official, Zhou Li, informing her that the police had confiscated my press card.

“That really shouldn’t be possible,” she said, saying that she would look into it.

The card is issued by the Foreign Ministry and is, in fact, their property.

I had been detained for three hours, interrogated, asked to delete photos and had my press card seized.

An interesting day, but still — nothing compared to the detention of dozens of churchgoers, and the detentions, arrests and disappearances of lawyers, writers, activists and an artist named Ai Weiwei in recent weeks.

China returns press card to Star writer, with a stern warning

BEIJING—Chinese police returned a government-issued press card to a Toronto Star journalist Tuesday, issuing a formal warning that “further violations” of Chinese reporting regulations could lead to “punishment,” including cancelling his visa.

The press card, a separate document also necessary to conduct journalistic work inside China, was seized Sunday by police during a three-hour detention and interrogation session, after the Star photographed police rounding up Christian worshippers as they arrived for an outdoor religious service in Beijing.

Chinese authorities said the service was illegal, since the church — known as Shouwang, or “The Watchtower” — is not approved by the ruling Communist government.

And police claimed that by simply taking photographs without prior permission from local authorities that the Star had violated China’s press regulations.

That interpretation, if strictly enforced, would rewrite the slightly relaxed media regulations that were introduced in 2007, just before the 2008 Olympics.

“It sounds like a reversion to how things were in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when we were frequently detained and threatened with visa non-renewal if we did not behave,” says Rebecca Mackinnon, a former CNN journalist, who is now senior fellow at the Boston-based New America Foundation.

The squeeze on journalistic activity here in recent weeks accompanies China’s biggest rights crackdown in a decade.

It has come in the wake of revolutions rocking North Africa and the Middle East, which have made authorities here nervous.

China’s powerful internal security apparatus, which already commands a bigger piece of the national budget than China’s military machine, is believed to be gaining ever greater clout inside the corridors of Zhongnanhai, the Chinese equivalent of the White House.

Reports say the state’s security czar, 68-year-old Zhou Yongkang, a member of the Politburo Standing Committee who commands the police and the courts, is growing even more powerful.

On Tuesday, during another interrogation by police, the Star learned that the current tightening of media restrictions could turn on the translation and interpretation of two Chinese characters: “cai fang.”

According to an English translation on the foreign affairs website, “cai fang” means “interview.”

Hence, the English translation of the key reporting regulation reads, “A foreign journalist who intends to interview organizations or individuals in China needs to obtain their prior consent.”

The Star conducted no interviews Sunday, but took only photographs.

But on Tuesday, police insisted “cai fang” included photography and a range of journalistic activity — not just interviewing.

Chinese dictionaries indicate that “cai fang” means to gather or to look, but when used in connection with news gathering, some say it can mean interviewing, as well as taking notes or photos, filming and tape-recording.

Mackinnon recalls that in the China of the 1990s she and her CNN crews would occasionally get detained for filming and interviewing on the streets.

“Once we were detained for interviewing bystanders right before president Bill Clinton’s motorcade was scheduled to drive by,” she says. “At that time the police included filming and taking pictures in their definition of ‘cai fang.’ ”

Recent graduates of Chinese journalism schools say the precise meaning of “cai fang” isn’t clear.

“There is no real, clear-cut definition of ‘cai fang,’ ” says one, “even among academic circles.”

People get into trouble, be it their fault or not. Legal charges are brought against them, or they bring legal charges against someone else. These cases are fought in a court of law by lawyers prosecuting or defending. Lawyers for the province are called Crown lawyers. There is a judge that keeps everything fair for both sides. Then there are jurors, the average citizens that decide innocent or guilty. Jurors are so very important to the process, and therefore democracy.

Somehow I have always been a magnet for Mainland Chinese people here in Toronto. They always seem to want to talk to me in Mandarin. Drawn to me was a man in his 60s from Shandong, China. He explained to be that though he is a Canadian citizen and has been in Canada for over a decade his level of English was insufficient to understand the court reporter. Though he tried to tell many people, his simple daily English betrayed his lack of deeper English listening skills. Still, he told me that doing jury duty was much better than in China, where there are no juries at all, judgments made only by an appointed judge. The Canadian way is much better. With a stubbled beard he has been called twice within 6 years.

Randomness starts early in the process. There are 3.4 million citizens in the City of Toronto, an estimated 2.5 million over the age of 18. From this pool of citizens, an estimated 200 are selected weekly for jury duty, to become possible jurors. These 200 are divided into 4 groups of about 50 citizens each. When a case requires a jury one group (for a civil case) or two groups (for a criminal case) are sent to the court room.

Civil legal cases require 8 jurors. The court reporter puts all the names of prospective jurors into a cylindrical container and rolls the container in order to randomize the selection. Eight people are selected, called to stand beside the court reporter. Names and occupations are read for each citizen. Either lawyer can kick out a maximum of 4 jurors, no reason given. This is called a challenge. When a juror is kicked out, another citizen is randomly selected by the court reporter as replacement. The process continues until the lawyers agree on a jury or when they have reached their maximum number of jurors they do not like. No other questions are asked of prospective jurors. The process is actually quite efficient.

Criminal cases require 12 jurors, with no limit of “rejects” by either lawyer. Fifteen or twenty prospective jurors are selected at random by the court reporter. Their names and occupations are read individually. Lawyers again can accept or challenge. Prospective jurors are not asked any questions by the lawyers nor the judge, with the exception of clarification of occupation. No reasons are given for contesting a citizen. There also seemed to be no logic in accepting or challenging prospective jurors. This process can take quite a long time. While the process can seem inefficient, it does look very impartial and therefore fair to both parties. The outcome of a criminal case is serious for the accused, so I am glad the process goes to such lengths for impartiality.

Criminal cases are very different because prospective jurors are asked to look at the accused and the accused is asked to look at the prospective juror. There is a tension in the air when this occurs, and is felt throughout the jury panel. The accused will know your name, occupation and city, as does all in the courtroom. If convicted would they hunt down jurors when released? Searching and finding for people on Google is very simple and in most cases very effective. We have much information about ourselves online that is readily accessible by anyone.

A hot topic of discussion amongst prospective jurors is how to be challenged by either lawyer and therefore not become a juror. Health issues were the main reason for disallowing a prospective juror. There are other inventive reasons but I will not divulge them. I believe citizens should do their part in our legal system and if they do not experience extreme hardship, should fulfill their legal obligation of jury duty.

Most of the time in jury duty is idle. There are back issue magazines and National Geographic to read, but no newspapers. There is no internet access, but you could bring your own wireless access. Those on computers checked email once in a while, but usually were seen playing games or not using their computers. There are other people to converse. You are able to eat and talk on the phone in the waiting room. Life in the waiting room is non eventful. There is a one hour lunch break.

I had expected a heavy police presence at the court room. I had visions of G20 style goons in riot gear, accosting and challenging citizens, but this is not the case. There are police at the entrance and within the halls, but they are low keyed and kept to themselves. Police intimidation is left to the street. Courts seem more about fairness than a show of force. Calmness does prevail.

Jury duty disrupts the life of the average citizen, but reminds us that we have an integral part in the democratic process. It is well worth the expense in court and to citizens. The process for prospective jurors, while a little tense, is educational and memorable.

Are Canadians that passive to allow these atrocities to simply pass? We Canadians got a firm dose of reality check in June 2010. Should not those that were supposedly in the “wrong place at the wrong time” have their legal rights restored? We really need to fix this now so this does not happen again.

Canada cannot cast the first stone at international regimes who brutalize their citizens when we do the same in our own country. We are hypocritical.

Addendum Mar 01 2011: G20 ‘rights violations’ require public inquiry: report

Addendum May 31 2011: Toronto’s shame: Probe the G20 travesty

Addendum June 02 2011: Citizens urge review judge to get to bottom of G20

You are the upholder of the Charter right now,” Vikram Mulligan said, holding his gaze on Morden, [the retired judge leading the Toronto Police Services Board’s independent civilian review of the G20], a full second after he spoke.

Several people said they no longer trust Toronto police and called on Morden to restore confidence in the institution by making it more accountable to the public.

How many times do citizens need to ask in order to right this terrible violation of our Charter of Rights? Our Prime Minister has ignored the citizens of Toronto, and still won the election. Next up is the Premier of Ontario, with an election in October 2011.

Here in Canada, your average citizen cannot buy a gun. Guns are restricted to police and gun club members, who need to be registered. Guns are either stolen from gun collectors, or are smuggled in from the US in exchange for drugs. Gangs use guns to terrorize the public or other competing gangs.

Chung Hing is our local Chinese grocer. They have 6 cashiers. On a typical Sunday afternoon they would have three open. While it would not be crowded, it would be busy. In the past there has been trouble with black thieves armed with guns in the same plaza. Surprising this is not, but brazen it was. Chung Hing is not a high value target. They do have close circuit surveillance cameras that surround the store as well as show inside the store.

No one was hurt, so there will be no mention about this in the news. Still, many, including my family, are traumatized. Such brazen acts to hurt others breed ill will against the local black community, and with good reason. We continue to be wary and we have good reason. These gangs need to be stopped and thrown into jail.

The following is excerpted from a statement this week to a parliamentary committee by Nathalie Des Rosiers, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, calling for a public inquiry into the events of the G20 weekend in Toronto last June:

Peaceful assembly is as fundamental a right as the right to vote: it supports access by politicians to their electors and permits political life and discussion. It ought not to be violated with impunity.

The security effort for the G20 was massive, it was expensive and it was complex. Its results include the largest mass arrests in Canadian history outside of wartime, thousands of arbitrary detentions and unreasonable searches, numerous instances of vandalism. It ought not to become the model for public order policing. We deserve better.

It cannot be that over 900 completely innocent people were arrested, their hands tied, their phones seized, their shoes removed, denied the opportunity to call anyone, detained for several hours, one of the most frightening experiences and interactions with the state and the police — and their government will say that it does not care. To say that, unfortunately, they were at the wrong place, at the wrong time, is not enough. They are entitled to understand why they were treated this way. They deserve better.

Finally, I want to appeal to you as men and women who believe in politics and the public good. You all give your lives to attempting to solve issues for your fellow citizens. That is why you are here.

People who protest also believe in the power of politics. They could stay home and watch TV, watch the World Cup, play on their computers. But they care enough about their fellow citizens (here and elsewhere) to march, and they were arrested. A handful of vandals ought to have been stopped, not a thousand people randomly arrested or dispersed.

We should support political engagement, not punish it. The day that 20 world political leaders meet and no one shows up to express their opinion, for fear that they could be arrested or mistreated, is the day we will have truly lost our democracy. We are counting on you to ensure that this does not occur by committing to a process that will provide answers and solutions.

The Toronto Star editorial today Nov 01, 2010, also asks for an independent public inquiry.

The security excesses of the G20 summit in Toronto last summer are still an ongoing concern for the 1,000 peaceful protesters and bystanders who were arrested, handcuffed and held in steel cages. For many other Canadians, though, the summit’s protests and policing tactics became an unfortunate historical footnote not long after the security fences came down.

Last week, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association made a compelling case before a Commons committee that the security and policing concerns raised during the summit are far from over. The CCLA urged that we hold a public inquiry to learn from the many mistakes, lest we repeat them. Among the concerns:

Laws were changed without public input; the public was misinformed about broadened police powers; unconstitutional searches occurred across the city; excessive force was used to disperse peaceful protesters; and, ultimately, more than 1,000 people were arrested, held in an overcrowded detention centre and not allowed to call their family or a lawyer. More than 900 of them had not done anything wrong and were subsequently released without charge.

As CCLA General Counsel Nathalie Des Rosiers told the committee: “Either we will emerge (from the G20 weekend) with stronger democratic institutions . . . and better policing or we will have tolerated mass violations of civil liberties with callous indifference.”

So far, Ottawa and Queen’s Park have taken the latter course. Rather than calling a broad public inquiry, they point to various and sundry mini-reviews already underway. Each will shed light on a certain aspect of the G20 weekend, but none has the necessary mandate to link all the political and police decisions or the power to compel evidence under oath.

Certainly, the first two days of public hearings on the G8/G20 summits do not provide confidence that the Commons public safety committee will be the vehicle to get to the bottom of this affair. Indeed, with every dodge and weave at the committee last week, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews proved yet again why a public inquiry is needed. For example, he assured the MPs that there were “compelling” reasons to locate the G8 and G20 summits in Muskoka and Toronto, respectively, but he was unable to recall those reasons.

Government advisers and a top RCMP official were scarcely more helpful. When questioned about the mass arrests or the conditions in the detention centre, the answer was, invariably, that someone else was responsible for that.

It will take a public inquiry to follow the decision-making trail and find the answers.

More charges against accused G20 protesters are dropped by the Crown. This is getting more ridiculous as time goes on.

Addendum Nov 04, 2010: News today says that during the G20 in Toronto 90 Toronto police officers removed their name tags and now face disciplinary action. This is preposterous. Even a cursory look at any photo of any police would show at first glance that most police officers were unidentifiable. This was an order from their leadership, a strategic decision and a systemic problem. If these police officers are to be punished, their leadership should also be investigated and punished twice as much. Do not blame the rank and file for the failure and transgressions of the leadership. The public is not that gullible.

Addendum Nov 05 2010: Here’s an excellent article on kettling at the G20 Summit in Toronto, Canada. How the police can get away with such brutality of innocent fellow citizens is beyond me. I will remember this when I vote provincially and federally. Such a violation of our rights cannot be tolerated. To those who suffered, my condolences.

Addendum Nov 08 2010: Yet another article about Toronto police brutality, where unidentified police officers beat up two peaceful protesters. They will participate in hearings on the Toronto G20 Summit, held by the CCLU.

Addendum Nov 11 2010: Stories from hearings show G20 still haunts residents

G20 destroying democracy in order to save it

Just how nasty is being documented by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. It’s holding public meetings this week in Toronto and Montreal to hear from victims of police violence at the G20. Their stories were at once riveting and tedious. Riveting because the pain is so obviously real; tedious because they’re all the same. source

-Tales of horror from a police state — ours

Addendum Nov 25, 2010: Officers not at fault for injuries during G20 protests: SIU Excessive force used and acknowledged, but supposedly officers could not be identified, so all walk free. This is to be expected but is disappointing. Police should not be able to wantonly break people’s bones without consequences.

Addendum Nov 30 2010: How a man named Nobody became the battered face of G20 protests

Addendum Dec 06 2010: NDP, students call for G20 public inquiry: I hope someone is listening, as I too want a full public inquiry. The police have beaten up innocent people and we need this stopped. Those that were beaten and jailed need to find justice in the Canadian judicial system.

Toronto journalist witnessed ‘police brutality’ at Toronto G20: TVO’s Steve Paikin testifies to an Ottawa parliamentary committee that he saw police brutality, when he saw a Guardian (British newspaper) reporter Jesse Rosenfeld get beaten up.

Addendum Dec 18 2010: G20 case studies: 400 official complaints, little satisfaction: LOL Police investigating other police. There is no possible way to show impartiality with the current processes. Even the SIU is loaded with 70% ex police officers, better but still insufficient. There is no impartiality here.

Addendum April 28 2011: Exclusive: Province to scrap secret G20 law

Addendum May 11 2011: Filmmaker suing province, police over G20 arrest: British filmmaker arrested twice for G20 issues, then not charged.

Addendum June 20 2011: 58 per cent of G20 arrests withdrawn, stayed or dismissed, Majority of 1,105 arrested during G20 released without charges

Kettling tactic employed by the Toronto Police during the G20 Summit at the intersection of Spadina and Queen on June 27, 2010: Eldar Curovic

The “kettling” tactic, where police corral protesters into a tight, enclosed space without access to food, water or bathrooms, has been the focus of much criticism over the past decade. During the London G20 summit in 2009, a 47-year-old newspaper vendor died after being kettled.

Anatomy of the G20: the story from both sides of the fence: Toronto Star

Update Feb 23 2011: Apparently the RCMP has no policy for kettling and does not use this tactic for crowd control. “….It is the RCMP stated policy “always” to give crowds a way out. It seems like much back pedaling from police forces, after these illegal deeds were done and Torontonian’s civil rights were violated. The new battlefront is the court system, where protesters sue the police. And they should.

Update April 14 2011: London G20 ‘kettling’ was illegal, British court rules, though the ruling took 2 years. I hope the judges here in Toronto come to the same conclusion.

Update June 22 2011: Toronto police swear off G20 kettling tactic: Deemed illegal in the UK and now in Toronto, this tactic should not have been used at all. This is not to say that Toronto Police cannot retract the statement, or than any other police force in Canada would not use kettling.

Update May 14 2012: Mounties objected to kettling G20 protesters, watchdog finds: The RCMP reluctantly state they did not agree with the kettling tactics but were under the command of Toronto Police and therefore complied. Finger pointing continues.