Matt Gurney's disappointment is understandable since the streets have been full of antisemitic people shouting antisemitic slurs. Dehumanizing Imagery: Use of posters depicting Jewish people as vermin (rats) or as grotesque, long-nosed monsters, which officials compared to Nazi-era propaganda.
What else. Oh, reports of individuals shouting calls for the death of Jewish people globally.
Signs and chants calling for the total elimination of the state of Israel.
Moral Equivalence: Comparing the (IDF) directly to terrorist organizations like ISIS.
And so much more - like marching through Jewish neighborhoods for what ... their health??
Cops and crown attorneys are supposed to enforce the law. When the law is not enforced, people are going to do what we have been seeing played out all across this country.
I don't really give a crap that the police and crown attorneys are afraid of what ... losing control of the situation? Good God, people are marching through Jewish neighborhoods. This has been going on since shortly after October 7, 2023. Authorities have had three #$#% years to figure it out. They lost control a long time ago.
Figure it out.
Because if protestors who dislike rich people marched through their rich neighborhoods, I guarantee it would be a short protest march. Protect our Jewish fellow citizens ... it's your job, so do it.
Naive idealism and overly sentimental " togetherness" along with "holding hands" and "bending the knee" photo ops have shaped the way politicians and legislators of every sort perceive their roles in dealing with each and every group in society, maybe, to the detriment of public order and certainly to the effectiveness of our front-line police forces. These influences give protesting groups the attitude that they are above the Law and can literally do as they please, including assaulting public institutions and destroying public property without fear of repercussions.
Just to show how weak our leaders are, they won’t even restore the law prohibiting face coverings at a protest. 70% of this crap would disappear overnight if these people were publically identified.
He's right. Politicians at all levels betray their officers whenever there is backlash. Good luck to officers had they tried to break the illegal rail blockade. We see the same issue with encampments, whether provincially at Caledon or locally at Allan Gardens where police were told to stand down despite open drug dealing in the tents. We also saw it at "harm reduction" facilities where police were told to stay clear so clients would feel "safe" which led to drug dealers moving in, knowing they could deal without being harassed.
Large crowds are inherently unstable. To cancel a hate event, a large contingent of officers would have to be on site *before* the event. With social media text alerts, the challenge would be to figure out where the protest might re-materialize. Flash mobs are easier to create than disperse. OTOH, in Lord of the Flies, Ralph doesn't blow the conch to demand order because he's afraid what will happen if he blows it and the wild boys don't fall in line. It doesn't end well. This is a growing structural problem, as our institutions lose trust and perceived control.
Interesting insights, but I'll only point to what seems to be a clear double standard depending on who's protesting, to wit:
• When the intifada, pro-palestine watermelon crowd openly advocates for antisemitism and the elimination of jews, with chants like "from the river to sea", the flying of flags such as ISIS, IRGC and other terrorist organizations, we have to protect their right to protest at any cost, and allow for destruction of property and intimidation of both police and bystanders (or counter-protesters).
• When truckers and other discontents who have legitimate grievances against their own government, it's OK to let it fester for as long as possible, then invoke the (now deemed illegal) emergencies act, debank people who weren't even at the protest, instead of dealing with the roadblocking and constant honking often and early, while allowing for the protest to go on.
As a point of comparison, Iranians, when protesting against their tyrannical regime are always the most polite and respectful, going as far thanking police officers and picking the trash up after themselves.
It's almost as if we are deliberately allowing some protests, not others and basically giving favours to causes that benefit those in power and tamping down those that are "inconvenient".
But we would never dare doing that, do we?
Jesting aside, I think 100% of the issue lies with the institutional decline of the last 11 years and the unfair enforcement (or lack thereof) of the laws.
Cops are just the last in a long line of decision makers. It's what happens above them that matters.
I don't believe for one second that it's reasonable to accept a lack of enforcement because it is difficult. The very fact that it's difficult is why we should redouble our efforts to try and get it right.
I understand some of the arguments the author makes but it seems his solution is to do nothing which is what we have seen since October 7. What is wrong with arresting the loudest and most disruptive- ideally the courts do something but even if the courts don’t do anything or charges aren’t even laid why not get them off the streets and send a message. Every arrest doesn’t need to lead to an inquiry as the author is positing. On the other hand when we do nothing ( like we are today) these “protesters” become emboldened and start escalating. I guess when somebody gets killed we might get serious and stop worrying about enforcing laws but then again a murder charge is way more work than bringing the protesters coffee and donuts.
This article seems to be "don't blame us for our failure to enforce the law, blame the Crown. It's their fault we don't arrest people."
Here's the thing, if police arrest violent protesters, and the Crown releases them, it's on the Crown. If you don't arrest violent protesters because you think the Crown will release them, it's on the police.
Man, this whole piece sounds like a public relations release to excuse police inaction over what is clearly a serious issue. Since when do police forces call ahead to the Justice Dept before doing their jobs? Last I looked, we still have a criminal code and police refer to it all the time. It shouldn't be their job to wonder if their legal enforcement of it is going to offend our Pols. If the elected bodies are offended they can always grow a pair and change the code. We now have a command level in the police forces as gutlessly political as the Pols themselves.
This may be titled “Flipping the Line” but it’s not really disagreeing with Gurney. Everyone is in agreement that the failure is with politicians to not set clearer expectations on protests and protect police who enforce those lines.
The fundamental issue here is that a (large?) segment of the population from about 2012-2022 started seeing our entire society as illegitimate and corrupt — based on settler-colonial genocide, patriotism, western and white supremacy, etc. So they welcomed things that attack society and voted in politicians who condoned attacks on infrastructure and society (rail blockades), sought to disempower police since police are the enforcers of an illegitimate power structure, etc.
It’s no-win for police under those conditions. They’re caught in the middle of an earthquake over whether our society is legitimate.
And as much as people think that Carney replacing Trudeau, Guilbeault’s turfing etc. was the end of the Second Great Social Justice Era in Canada, that’s very much not the case in the big cities. Lots of people in Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg etc. still think that rail blockades are a legitimate reaction the the founding genocide of Canada, that global Jewry props up the genocide-state of Israel and are legitimate targets, etc. They empower politicians who reflect those views. And police in those cities are still caught in the middle if they try to do their jobs. It’s an impossible task for them.
I have to say, I have some difficulty reconciling “peaceful” assembly with “significant disruption”. I don’t see peaceful as implying anything more than a nominal amount of disruption, not modest, not moderate and certainly not significant. Just because something isn’t actually violent doesn’t mean it is peaceful. There’s a continuum that seems to be ignored.
Certainly it’s politicians’ responsibility to clarify the law (or constitution if necessary) when it becomes apparent that the judiciary appears to have a different view of how it should be applied than what they envisioned when it was drafted. But it’s also the judiciary’s responsibility to, it seems to me, better interpret the law.
There’s also the matter of simple enforcement of the Highway Traffic Act (in Ontario) as it addresses obstructing traffic.
I understand why the author is defending the actions of the police and he should, and EVERYBODY recognizes that policing is a difficult, sometimes dangerous profession. It's also part of an overall system that is full of contradictions, just and unjust compromises and political and social bias and interference.
But the laws are black and white and need to be enforced, even if the justice system fails and releases the perpetrators.
At the recent demonstration in Toronto there were placards and signs depicting Jews (not Israelis or Zionists) that either were taken directly from the favorites of Josef Goebbels or certainly drew their inspiration from there. An arrestable offence? Yeah, I'd imagine so. SO ARREST THEM!. IF it takes some show of force, and results in more arrests so be it. If it means the police need to don riot gear and act like a police "force" as opposed to a police "service" then so be it.
We need government and the enforcement arm of government to secure our communities for the benefit of those of us who contribute to a healthy, productive and safe society. WE create and support the communities that these people take advantage of and threaten. That means these out-of-hand racist demonstrations need to be aggressively broken up, "petty" property crime, drug-elated crime, etc. needs to be treated as what it is - CRIME.
It comes down whose rights take precedent in a situation at hand, because the idea that everyone/everything is equal and deserves to be weighted the same is fiction.
But the courts aren’t applying them in a black and white manner. Look at what happens if you screw up a person’s pronouns and compare it to what happens if you walk in the streets with 1930s imagery of Jews from Germany.
Exceptionally well said. This has been the issue for police (and many other professions) forever, their actions that were made on a microsecond of reactionary thought, combed over by lawyers for months before expecting what is patently unrealistic. It falls upon our elected leaders to seriously tighten up their definitions of what is and what is not acceptable in a demonstration. Those will then face their own court challenges. I say that as the Feds are foolishly appealing their loss on the Emergencies Act. The Convoy is the perfect example of a protest that demanded rapid police intervention.
You are right to point out that there is a certain unfairness in the political class demanding officers make decisions in the moment knowing that if things go south, they may be thrown under the bus. This is an issue that should be addressed with legislation.
But, with respect, you and many other police officers have drawn the wrong lesson from previous protest management decisions. The following quote is non unreasonable in the context of, say, the APEC protest you were involved with: "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."
This is entirely wrong in the context of sustained protests targeting a vulnerable minority. Bluntly, the message is that antisemitic criminal behaviour can be shielded because a "large and hostile crowd" gets a veto. This attitude needs to change.
Everything the author said. I would add that this has become more clear since after the Toronto G20 protests. After that, for all the reasons the author stated, police have largely taken a hands-off approach to public order incidents. The police managers, bureaucrats and politicians had better figure out something soon.
To paraphrase David Frum, when liberals fail to enforce the law, voters will elect fascists who will.
Matt Gurney is 100% correct. re police and politician's failure. to have moral spine. And this article is white-washing Jew-hatred enabled and encouraged by the "Liberal" and leftist political establishment, their politicians, and their supporters. They are the ones responsible for importing people who practice hateful religions.
Mr. Stamatakis, it is understandable that you present and defend a policeman's perspect. However your perspective simply moves all actionable responsibility from police to government. Take some collective responsibility yourself. Give us a list of legislative and operational changes that would improve the chaos.
We are tired of kow-towing to rampaging protestors and the police union knows exactly what is required to fix some if it. Tell us... and publish a TO DO list for government.
Matt Gurney's disappointment is understandable since the streets have been full of antisemitic people shouting antisemitic slurs. Dehumanizing Imagery: Use of posters depicting Jewish people as vermin (rats) or as grotesque, long-nosed monsters, which officials compared to Nazi-era propaganda.
What else. Oh, reports of individuals shouting calls for the death of Jewish people globally.
Signs and chants calling for the total elimination of the state of Israel.
Moral Equivalence: Comparing the (IDF) directly to terrorist organizations like ISIS.
And so much more - like marching through Jewish neighborhoods for what ... their health??
Cops and crown attorneys are supposed to enforce the law. When the law is not enforced, people are going to do what we have been seeing played out all across this country.
I don't really give a crap that the police and crown attorneys are afraid of what ... losing control of the situation? Good God, people are marching through Jewish neighborhoods. This has been going on since shortly after October 7, 2023. Authorities have had three #$#% years to figure it out. They lost control a long time ago.
Figure it out.
Because if protestors who dislike rich people marched through their rich neighborhoods, I guarantee it would be a short protest march. Protect our Jewish fellow citizens ... it's your job, so do it.
If you don't enforce the law, it will be pushed. We're seeing that now.
Naive idealism and overly sentimental " togetherness" along with "holding hands" and "bending the knee" photo ops have shaped the way politicians and legislators of every sort perceive their roles in dealing with each and every group in society, maybe, to the detriment of public order and certainly to the effectiveness of our front-line police forces. These influences give protesting groups the attitude that they are above the Law and can literally do as they please, including assaulting public institutions and destroying public property without fear of repercussions.
Just to show how weak our leaders are, they won’t even restore the law prohibiting face coverings at a protest. 70% of this crap would disappear overnight if these people were publically identified.
He's right. Politicians at all levels betray their officers whenever there is backlash. Good luck to officers had they tried to break the illegal rail blockade. We see the same issue with encampments, whether provincially at Caledon or locally at Allan Gardens where police were told to stand down despite open drug dealing in the tents. We also saw it at "harm reduction" facilities where police were told to stay clear so clients would feel "safe" which led to drug dealers moving in, knowing they could deal without being harassed.
Large crowds are inherently unstable. To cancel a hate event, a large contingent of officers would have to be on site *before* the event. With social media text alerts, the challenge would be to figure out where the protest might re-materialize. Flash mobs are easier to create than disperse. OTOH, in Lord of the Flies, Ralph doesn't blow the conch to demand order because he's afraid what will happen if he blows it and the wild boys don't fall in line. It doesn't end well. This is a growing structural problem, as our institutions lose trust and perceived control.
Interesting insights, but I'll only point to what seems to be a clear double standard depending on who's protesting, to wit:
• When the intifada, pro-palestine watermelon crowd openly advocates for antisemitism and the elimination of jews, with chants like "from the river to sea", the flying of flags such as ISIS, IRGC and other terrorist organizations, we have to protect their right to protest at any cost, and allow for destruction of property and intimidation of both police and bystanders (or counter-protesters).
• When truckers and other discontents who have legitimate grievances against their own government, it's OK to let it fester for as long as possible, then invoke the (now deemed illegal) emergencies act, debank people who weren't even at the protest, instead of dealing with the roadblocking and constant honking often and early, while allowing for the protest to go on.
As a point of comparison, Iranians, when protesting against their tyrannical regime are always the most polite and respectful, going as far thanking police officers and picking the trash up after themselves.
It's almost as if we are deliberately allowing some protests, not others and basically giving favours to causes that benefit those in power and tamping down those that are "inconvenient".
But we would never dare doing that, do we?
Jesting aside, I think 100% of the issue lies with the institutional decline of the last 11 years and the unfair enforcement (or lack thereof) of the laws.
Cops are just the last in a long line of decision makers. It's what happens above them that matters.
I don't believe for one second that it's reasonable to accept a lack of enforcement because it is difficult. The very fact that it's difficult is why we should redouble our efforts to try and get it right.
I understand some of the arguments the author makes but it seems his solution is to do nothing which is what we have seen since October 7. What is wrong with arresting the loudest and most disruptive- ideally the courts do something but even if the courts don’t do anything or charges aren’t even laid why not get them off the streets and send a message. Every arrest doesn’t need to lead to an inquiry as the author is positing. On the other hand when we do nothing ( like we are today) these “protesters” become emboldened and start escalating. I guess when somebody gets killed we might get serious and stop worrying about enforcing laws but then again a murder charge is way more work than bringing the protesters coffee and donuts.
This article seems to be "don't blame us for our failure to enforce the law, blame the Crown. It's their fault we don't arrest people."
Here's the thing, if police arrest violent protesters, and the Crown releases them, it's on the Crown. If you don't arrest violent protesters because you think the Crown will release them, it's on the police.
Ah, but what if they aren't being violent.....just intimidating?
Section 423 of the Criminal Code seems to fit.
Man, this whole piece sounds like a public relations release to excuse police inaction over what is clearly a serious issue. Since when do police forces call ahead to the Justice Dept before doing their jobs? Last I looked, we still have a criminal code and police refer to it all the time. It shouldn't be their job to wonder if their legal enforcement of it is going to offend our Pols. If the elected bodies are offended they can always grow a pair and change the code. We now have a command level in the police forces as gutlessly political as the Pols themselves.
This may be titled “Flipping the Line” but it’s not really disagreeing with Gurney. Everyone is in agreement that the failure is with politicians to not set clearer expectations on protests and protect police who enforce those lines.
The fundamental issue here is that a (large?) segment of the population from about 2012-2022 started seeing our entire society as illegitimate and corrupt — based on settler-colonial genocide, patriotism, western and white supremacy, etc. So they welcomed things that attack society and voted in politicians who condoned attacks on infrastructure and society (rail blockades), sought to disempower police since police are the enforcers of an illegitimate power structure, etc.
It’s no-win for police under those conditions. They’re caught in the middle of an earthquake over whether our society is legitimate.
And as much as people think that Carney replacing Trudeau, Guilbeault’s turfing etc. was the end of the Second Great Social Justice Era in Canada, that’s very much not the case in the big cities. Lots of people in Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg etc. still think that rail blockades are a legitimate reaction the the founding genocide of Canada, that global Jewry props up the genocide-state of Israel and are legitimate targets, etc. They empower politicians who reflect those views. And police in those cities are still caught in the middle if they try to do their jobs. It’s an impossible task for them.
I have to say, I have some difficulty reconciling “peaceful” assembly with “significant disruption”. I don’t see peaceful as implying anything more than a nominal amount of disruption, not modest, not moderate and certainly not significant. Just because something isn’t actually violent doesn’t mean it is peaceful. There’s a continuum that seems to be ignored.
Certainly it’s politicians’ responsibility to clarify the law (or constitution if necessary) when it becomes apparent that the judiciary appears to have a different view of how it should be applied than what they envisioned when it was drafted. But it’s also the judiciary’s responsibility to, it seems to me, better interpret the law.
There’s also the matter of simple enforcement of the Highway Traffic Act (in Ontario) as it addresses obstructing traffic.
I understand why the author is defending the actions of the police and he should, and EVERYBODY recognizes that policing is a difficult, sometimes dangerous profession. It's also part of an overall system that is full of contradictions, just and unjust compromises and political and social bias and interference.
But the laws are black and white and need to be enforced, even if the justice system fails and releases the perpetrators.
At the recent demonstration in Toronto there were placards and signs depicting Jews (not Israelis or Zionists) that either were taken directly from the favorites of Josef Goebbels or certainly drew their inspiration from there. An arrestable offence? Yeah, I'd imagine so. SO ARREST THEM!. IF it takes some show of force, and results in more arrests so be it. If it means the police need to don riot gear and act like a police "force" as opposed to a police "service" then so be it.
We need government and the enforcement arm of government to secure our communities for the benefit of those of us who contribute to a healthy, productive and safe society. WE create and support the communities that these people take advantage of and threaten. That means these out-of-hand racist demonstrations need to be aggressively broken up, "petty" property crime, drug-elated crime, etc. needs to be treated as what it is - CRIME.
It comes down whose rights take precedent in a situation at hand, because the idea that everyone/everything is equal and deserves to be weighted the same is fiction.
But the courts aren’t applying them in a black and white manner. Look at what happens if you screw up a person’s pronouns and compare it to what happens if you walk in the streets with 1930s imagery of Jews from Germany.
Exceptionally well said. This has been the issue for police (and many other professions) forever, their actions that were made on a microsecond of reactionary thought, combed over by lawyers for months before expecting what is patently unrealistic. It falls upon our elected leaders to seriously tighten up their definitions of what is and what is not acceptable in a demonstration. Those will then face their own court challenges. I say that as the Feds are foolishly appealing their loss on the Emergencies Act. The Convoy is the perfect example of a protest that demanded rapid police intervention.
You are right to point out that there is a certain unfairness in the political class demanding officers make decisions in the moment knowing that if things go south, they may be thrown under the bus. This is an issue that should be addressed with legislation.
But, with respect, you and many other police officers have drawn the wrong lesson from previous protest management decisions. The following quote is non unreasonable in the context of, say, the APEC protest you were involved with: "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."
This is entirely wrong in the context of sustained protests targeting a vulnerable minority. Bluntly, the message is that antisemitic criminal behaviour can be shielded because a "large and hostile crowd" gets a veto. This attitude needs to change.
Thanks for this helpful context Tom. Puts things in better perspective.
Everything the author said. I would add that this has become more clear since after the Toronto G20 protests. After that, for all the reasons the author stated, police have largely taken a hands-off approach to public order incidents. The police managers, bureaucrats and politicians had better figure out something soon.
To paraphrase David Frum, when liberals fail to enforce the law, voters will elect fascists who will.
Matt Gurney is 100% correct. re police and politician's failure. to have moral spine. And this article is white-washing Jew-hatred enabled and encouraged by the "Liberal" and leftist political establishment, their politicians, and their supporters. They are the ones responsible for importing people who practice hateful religions.
Mr. Stamatakis, it is understandable that you present and defend a policeman's perspect. However your perspective simply moves all actionable responsibility from police to government. Take some collective responsibility yourself. Give us a list of legislative and operational changes that would improve the chaos.
We are tired of kow-towing to rampaging protestors and the police union knows exactly what is required to fix some if it. Tell us... and publish a TO DO list for government.