Toronto Police to conduct G20 tactics review -

Toronto Police to conduct G20 tactics review

Police insist crowd control methods were lawful


Following a barrage of complaints, the Toronto Police Service has announced it will review its practices during the G20 summit to determine if police acted too aggressively towards protesters over the weekend. Police said in a press release the Summit Management After Action Review Team (SMAART) will assess the G20 plans and their execution to improve future operations. Police chief Bill Blair told reporters at a press conference Tuesday morning that the SMAART review will be submitted to the Integrated Security Unit—the umbrella law enforcement group that handled security during the summit and includes members of the RCMP, Ontario Provincial Police and Toronto police—and to himself. More than 900 people were arrested during protests over the weekend, and Blair said he expects about 400 people to be held accountable for criminal acts committed in the city. Protesters, independent journalists and civil liberties groups have criticized the Integrated Security Unit, including their tactics on Sunday evening when they hemmed in 500 people at the intersection of Queen Street West and Spadina Avenue for hours in the pouring rain. Police acknowledged they changed tactics after Saturday’s chaos, in which windows were smashed and some police cruisers set on fire, but they insist their methods were lawful. Amnesty International has called for an independent rather than internal inquiry, and a Facebook group lobbying for a public inquiry reached 11,400 members on Tuesday morning.


Filed under:

Toronto Police to conduct G20 tactics review

  1. Those CCTV cameras coming down? Anyone?

  2. I hope Amnesty bends this police force over so the people can screw them like they did us.

  3. I find it amusing that many people continue to note that the Police used 'restraint'. They are REQUIRED to use restraint. They are paid, and paid well, to use restraint.

    900 arrested with less than 50% charged? Not a record to hang your hat on. That means that innocent people were arrested WITHOUT CAUSE. Let the court cases begin.

    And those were really nice new shiny helmets, shields, and batons the Police were using. Who paid for that equipment?

    • Not to quibble, but everyone detained was innocent (until proven guilty at a trial). It means that well over half of the people were arrested for absolutely no reason.

  4. Can anyone tell me why some of the "protestors" were able to walk around with their faces covered? Are we not living in Canada? Why weren't those people in particular arrested and photgraphed, and printed so we know who they were? Seems to me that the meir fact that they covered their faces suggests that they were going to be trouble, or at least encourage others to be nothing but . Perhaps if tighter control would have happened with those, others would have been more careful. Covering ones face in this country isn't appropriate, and has never been in Canada. Isn't that to hide? How are we recognized if not by our faces? Why are we photographed for drivers license, and pastports if not to beable to recognize who is whom?

    • because we live in a place where arbitrary detention is illegal thank god

    • Oh my, I thought most Macleans' readers and commenters were a little more open minded than that. Shall we just tell half the Muslim population they aren't welcome unless they unveil? Shall we just toss our constitutional rights out the window because a few people dressed in black with masks broke some windows? Give me a break.

    • If you want to lobby your MP to push a law like that, be my guest. I highly doubt it would be constitutional and therefore couldn't be enforced but it is certainly within your rights.

      The reason they didn't do that in this case (or actually they did unlawfully) is that the law isn't on the books. Police are not allowed to make up laws on the spot to deal with the situation. We, our elected representatives that is, make the laws and the police enforce them.

      Police being able to enforce imaginary laws on the spot is exactly what happened this weekend in numerous cases and even if you agree the laws should be on the books in times of protest (arbitrary search and seizure, mass arrest) you should be absolutely appalled that they were not on the books and the police enforced them anyways.

  5. I think there should be a review of the G20 format. It should include more for the average citizen. If, for example, the meeting was tied with expo-type exhibition maybe there would be more positive involvement and interest for the average person.

    As it stands right now, the G20 is a magnet for lefty-malcontents angry at everything and everyone.

    • There could even be a public opinion roller coaster!

  6. Their methods may have been 'lawful', but that doesn't make it right.

    • Agreed, I guess we don't have to worry about hosting this for maybe 20 years, but still I don't see these meetings attracting anybody but whiners and malcontents in their current form, and at a wild cost for the average citizen.

  7. The Maclean's bloggers have been notably absent from this debate. Usually I think of you guys as being a bit more relevant than that.

  8. Of course the police think that they acted with restraint. They'd rather have been out there cracking skulls.

    In actuality, the police and security personnel did exactly what they were mandated to do; protect the elite VIP's of the G20 and keep the sweaty masses away from the $5 million security perimeter fence. If, as Canadians, we thought that they were there to protect businesses (and their plate glass windows), residences or our right to march and assemble peacefully, we were either mislead or just sadly mistaken.

    Let's hope our next Prime Minister thinks twice before hosting another one of these foolish summits. They do nothing but divide the country but perhaps that's what our current PM wants.

  9. When you march into a BANK with a ROBBER you too are a ROBBER
    When you march SHOULDER to SHOULDER with THUGS and you ignore lawful commands from police then you too are THUGS. I saw it on German TV where police clearly said in English to disperse and nobody did anything so you think that your civil rights include ignoring the police…clearly our education system failed and I also saw when you spat and shouted expletives at police who showed real restraint. Most of you are a disgrace to Canada. When you ignore Law Enforcement Officers it is ILLEGAL. That is the Criminal Code of Canada which overrides anything else in emergencies. What part of that dont you idiots not understand? All of it? Obviously IQs lower than shoe size again.
    Hermann Mueller.

    • You may want to see if you can cite the part in the criminal code where it says ignoring law enforcement officers is a crime in and of itself. There's a reason it's called "resisting arrest" and not "failing to heed law enforcement officer commands"

      Beyond that however, you forget that there are numerous instances of people saying that the police told them to disperse while simultaneously having officers blocking any exits.

    • Clearly you are no intellectual pope! That said, you make an excellent sheep.

  10. The very first mandate of the SECURITY for the G8 and G20 was the safety of the WORLD LEADERS and STAFF, not the property of Toronto Business. The police made it known days ahead about the safety fence. Had a foreign leader been hurt or their conference stopped Canada would be seen as an ineffective and unsafe Country.
    Instead all the G8 and G20 Leaders praised Canada through our Prime Minister for their hospitality and safety in spite of the GOONS on the streets of Toronto who now whine about rights. They are NOT real Canadians just whiners who havent worked for a real job in their lives to contribute to Society. Shameful.

  11. Childish protesters are like dogs chasing a car, they don't really want to catch it because they wouldn't know what to do if they did. You kids had your fun, now go get jobs instead of begging for more welfare.

    • And clearly you are no intellectual pope! That said, you too make an excellent sheep.