Restoring post-G20 civility starts with mature dialogue

I wrote the following article for Toronto Community News, it was published this week.

For many Torontonians the events surrounding the G20 Summit challenged our attitudes and sensibilities towards fairness, order and civil liberties. Yet the longer term threat to our democracy is a seeming unwillingness, or incapacity, for mature public dialogue around what exactly went wrong that June weekend.

Aside from the brief meeting of world leaders and the distressing personal accounts of witnessed violence, damaged property and police confrontations, the essential fact is this: there were twice as many arrests during the summit weekend than in the weeks following the introduction of the War Measures Act by the federal government forty years ago. That legislation giving police extraordinary powers during the October Crisis followed political kidnappings – leading to murder, bombings throughout Montreal and specific threats of violence from an identified group, the FLQ. By contrast, most of the G20 arrests came after some burned police cars and broken storefront windows caused by a couple dozen masked trouble makers.

This distinction is not made to diminish the vandalism that occurred, but rather to question the proportionality of response by security forces. Was that response a panicked, gross overreaction? Part of a strategic, if cynical justification for the $1 billion spent on summit security, or for a law restricting civil liberties passed outside public view? Or was it an effort to quell public dissent towards global leaders and their actions – or inaction – on a host of issues?

Seeking answers to these and other relevant questions is the responsibility of every citizen who wishes to reside in a free society. Efforts by some of those in positions of power to delay or discourage the need for broad public dialogue should be vigorously challenged. Attempts to divide residents by leveraging lingering emotions must be dismissed for what they are: partisan ploys to score cheap political points.

In fact, the large majority of protestors participated in peaceful demonstrations in order to raise awareness of global issues ranging from intolerable levels of poverty to climate change. They marched in the heat and the rain for their beliefs, as is their constitutional right. Those who attempt to diminish the importance of this right and the seriousness with which it was exercised display a startling lack of respect for democracy.

By the same measure, sweeping condemnations of all police officers are as unhelpful and unnecessary as the politically expedient declarations of unquestionable support are. Many frontline officers appeared to have carried out their duties to the best of their abilities given the complexities of working in a multi-agency environment under unprecedented scrutiny.

Regardless of personal biases or gut reactions to the events as they unfolded in real time, it is in the public interest that factual, inclusive and respectful dialogue accompanies both formal reviews of summit security and informal conversations taking place across the city. Those conversations should be led by reasoned voices and listened to with empathetic ears.

Only by pursuing this course of action can Toronto restore some of the civility it lost that sorry weekend in June.