Flipping the Line: The difficult challenges of policing a protest

Tom Stamatakis argues that Matt Gurney's disappointment with the inaction of front-line officers at public events is misplaced

The Line welcomes angry rebuttals to our work. The best will be featured in our ongoing series, Flipping the Line. Today, Tom Stamatakis responds to Matt Gurney’s criticism of police tactics at anti-Israel protests

By: Tom Stamatakis

Matt Gurney’s recent column argues that Canada’s leaders, political and policing alike, have effectively abandoned Jewish Canadians by failing to enforce the law against criminal acts tied to protests and demonstrations.

It is an argument that resonates emotionally with many Canadians. At a time when antisemitism has surged and Jewish institutions have been targeted by violence and intimidation, those concerns are real and deserve serious attention.

Police officers across Canada share those concerns. Violence, threats, vandalism, and attacks on places of worship are criminal acts and should be treated as such. In the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 attacks, I co-authored an op-ed with the executive director of B’nai Brith Canada raising these concerns and calling on governments to ensure the safety of Jewish Canadians.

That concern remains today.

Mr. Gurney raises an issue that deserves serious discussion. However, the explanation offered in his column overlooks several important factors that shape how policing decisions are actually made during large and volatile demonstrations.

One of the least understood aspects of protest policing is that the legal line between protected expression and criminal conduct is often not clear in the moment. In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects peaceful assembly and expression, and courts have consistently reinforced that police must tolerate a significant degree of disruption before intervention becomes legally justified.

Those legal boundaries are frequently defined only later through court decisions or judicial review. Officers on the ground must make decisions in real time without the benefit of that hindsight, knowing that their actions may later be scrutinized in courtrooms, disciplinary proceedings, public inquiries, and the media.

Over the past decade, Canada has also experienced a broader shift in the political and institutional environment surrounding protests and demonstrations. Governments across the country have often struggled, or declined, to articulate clear expectations about enforcement when demonstrations become controversial. In many cases those decisions unfold under intense public scrutiny and in a political climate where early narratives about police actions can quickly shape the broader debate. At the same time, political leaders frequently distance themselves when enforcement actions generate public backlash.

The result is an environment in which police services are expected to manage volatile situations without clear guidance about where governments believe the enforcement line should be drawn.

Front-line officers are well aware of this reality. Many would welcome clearer authority and stronger institutional support to intervene when individuals cross the line from lawful protest into intimidation, violence, or criminal mischief. But they also understand that enforcement decisions made in the middle of large and emotionally charged crowds can carry enormous personal and professional consequences.

In recent years officers have seen that when enforcement actions become politically controversial, the institutional response can involve lengthy investigations, disciplinary processes, or public inquiries that unfold years after the event. In today’s digital environment officers may also face intense online harassment, including the public circulation of their personal information and threats directed at their families.

These realities inevitably influence operational decision-making.

There are also practical challenges involved in managing large demonstrations. Anyone who has worked in public-order policing understands how quickly crowd dynamics can shift. Attempting to arrest a single agitator in the middle of a large and hostile crowd can escalate rapidly and sometimes produce consequences far more serious than the original offence.

My perspective on this issue is shaped by decades of involvement in public-order operations. During my policing career in Vancouver, I was involved in large-scale crowd events including riots, international summits, and security operations surrounding the APEC meetings and the Yeltsin-Clinton summit. In my current role representing police members, I have also spent years reviewing similar incidents afterward through disciplinary hearings, commissions of inquiry, and other oversight processes examining operational decisions long after the fact.

Those experiences offer a clear lesson. The reality of policing large demonstrations is far more complex than it often appears from the outside.

Another dimension often overlooked in public commentary is the role of the broader justice system. Police can recommend charges, but they cannot compel prosecution. Across the country, officers have submitted reports recommending charges related to protest incidents only to see those cases delayed for extended periods or declined by prosecutors.

When those outcomes occur repeatedly, it inevitably shapes expectations about how incidents will be handled in the future.

Public understanding of these situations is also influenced by how incidents are reported and debated in the public sphere. Initial reports of contentious police encounters often generate intense attention and strong public reaction, while the fuller evidentiary record that emerges later through court proceedings, medical evidence, or witness testimony may receive far less scrutiny. This imbalance can shape broader perceptions in ways that influence political decision-making and contribute to the caution that often surrounds enforcement decisions in protest environments.

It is also important not to conflate separate issues. Criminal attacks on synagogues or other places of worship are investigated as serious criminal offences and police will pursue charges wherever evidence allows. Those incidents are fundamentally different from large protest environments where thousands of people may be exercising lawful rights while a smaller number engage in unlawful behaviour.

The operational challenges involved are not comparable.

There is another important factor that rarely enters the public discussion. The challenges surrounding protest enforcement are not new. For several years the Canadian Police Association has called on governments at all levels to establish clearer legislative and policy frameworks governing protests, demonstrations, and disruptions targeting public institutions and critical infrastructure.

Our concern has been that police are increasingly asked to manage highly politicized conflicts without clear legal tools or consistent policy direction from governments about where enforcement thresholds should lie.

Those calls have largely gone unanswered.

When governments fail to establish clear rules and expectations, the result is exactly the kind of uncertainty we see today. Police are left attempting to balance Charter rights, public safety, and political sensitivities in environments where the consequences of any decision may be scrutinized for years afterward.

None of this is meant to dismiss the legitimate concerns raised by Mr. Gurney about antisemitism or the safety of Jewish Canadians. Those concerns are real and must be taken seriously by governments and institutions across the country.

That complexity does not mean police always get these decisions right. Public-order operations are inherently difficult and mistakes can occur. Officers are human and the situations they confront are often chaotic and rapidly evolving. But understanding the structural pressures surrounding these decisions is essential if we want to have a serious conversation about how protests should be managed in Canada.

Protecting vulnerable communities from intimidation, harassment, or violence must remain a priority for every institution involved in public safety. Police services have an important role to play, but they are only one part of a broader system that includes legislators, prosecutors, courts, and political leaders. When that system functions clearly and consistently, enforcement becomes more effective and public confidence is strengthened.

Public confidence is not sustained by rhetoric alone. It depends on institutions being prepared to define clear rules, apply them consistently, and stand behind those decisions when they are challenged.

Understanding why enforcement sometimes appears inconsistent or restrained requires looking beyond the assumption that police simply lack the will to act.

The reality is a system shaped by judicial standards, prosecutorial decisions, political incentives, media narratives, and the difficult operational realities faced by officers on the ground.

Mr. Gurney is right to demand that governments take the safety of Jewish Canadians seriously. But the explanation for the current situation lies less in a failure of will by police officers and more in the unresolved policy and legal framework governing protests in Canada.

If governments want consistent enforcement in these environments, they must provide clearer legal frameworks and demonstrate the political will to support enforcement decisions when they are made. Without that clarity, police will continue to be placed in the middle of complex conflicts where every possible decision carries significant consequences.

Tom Stamatakis is President of the Canadian Police Association, representing more than 60,000 front-line police personnel across Canada. A Vancouver Police Department officer with more than three decades of service, he also serves as President of the International Council of Police Representative Associations.