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.
What do you do when a decent percentage of the population (and an even higher percentage of the big cities) really does think that global Jewry has a hand in propping up and supporting the genocide-state of Israel and thinks that these threatening protests, attacks on synagogues, etc. are fair game as part of the global intifadah?
The politicians wouldn’t look the other way on the intimidating protests and throw police under the bus if 99% of the Canadian population was deadset against these attacks. The numbers are way more scary than that in the big cities.
The enemy is us (where “us” is the Canadian population / especially the Toronto population). We’re the ones electing the politicians — especially at municipal council level — that give police an impossible task and won’t condemn the protests.
My point is that something like 30 or 40% of your fellow citizens in Toronto don’t *want* them to enforce the laws here because they think the greater struggle and fighting the state of Israel is more important than local laws.
None of this would happen if we had societal unity on these topics and 99% of people agreed with you.
I’m not defending these views, I’m just trying to say the state of play, even if it’s a depressing reality
Assuming they ever pass the new "online harms" and other laws lowering the bar to censor "hate speech" I'm sure it will be equally and fairly applied and not at all used to persecute anti government voices while giving the posters with the Jewish caricatures taken directly from Der Sturmer a pass.
Guaranteed they will not enforce 'online harms' because they ain't enforcing the shit happening on the streets and in Jewish neighborhoods. This gives government the appearance of doing something whilst doing nothing at all.
As KRM points out, it ALSO gives the government wide and sweeping powers to stifle dissent, which is not a small thing - and not at all typical of a democratic and free society.
Canadians seem too distracted by Orange Man Bad to notice the authoritarian State with centralized controls being instituted and solidified right in front of our faces.
By the time Canadians wake up to what the government is currently doing, it will be illegal to openly protest against the government, or say anything which counters the government narrative.
Canada was once a great country, but we have failed ourselves at the ballot box this past decade, and we are now on a very bad path...
Canada is not an authoritarian state, you must be mistaken. Were this an authoritarian state we simply would not be having a conversation using this means.
Let's see how it goes once the government passes its next few Bills.
We're seeing a free preview over in the UK, where they passed basically these same laws three years ago, and tens of thousands of people are currently behind bars for things they said online.
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.
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.
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.
It’s more like “don’t arrest them because your personal details will be posted on BlueSky, a vicious online crowd will attempt to ruin your life, and the politicians will put pressure on your boss (police chief) to not defend you and indeed fire you”
We cannot solve this without societal unity on what level of protest is acceptable and clear direction. Police are in an impossible position.
The police have helped put themselves into the impossible position. They have under policed, and over police, this means that trust in the police is failing, and that's on them.
People have been jailed for online threats in Canada, if they don't, it's on the Crown for not doing their job.
Here's the thing I keep saying "it's the job of the police to enforce the law, it's the job of the Crown to convict law breakers, and it's the government's job to create the law.".
If the police fail in their role, does it really matter what the Crown or the government do?
I disagree. It’s not on individual police chiefs or officers if they don’t make arrests if their bosses aren’t protecting them from reprisal by an angry online mob. That is expecting too much of people, even professionals like police.
We ask these people to do a dangerous job that has risk of injury, we cannot ask them to do it under conditions of being blamed for enforcing laws that they didn’t decide but that a big percentage of people think are unjust. We need the political masters to have the courage to enforce or change the law, and then cops will follow suit.
Maybe if they don't agree to the laws they are enforcing, they should go to Walmart and become greeters. Police being cowardly over enforcing the laws is how we got into this situation.
Your argument is silly, much like my rebuttal is.
If a large percentage of people consider these laws unjust, they should have the ability to elect politicians to change them. Or, is it a loud minority who wants to have the freedom to chant death threats to Jewish people that think these laws unjust?
I do appreciate that you are portraying the police as the poor victims in this.
I've attended, unintentionally, 3 events. At all three there was hate speech directed against Jewish people with no consequences. This is the problem and all the whataboutism ain't changing it. Many of these cruel morons belong in jail and they're getting a free pass.
Maybe, but there's a tightrope to walk...."Exceptions: Attending a place simply to obtain or communicate information is generally not considered "watching or besetting" under this section.
Marching and chanting "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" through Jewish neighbourhoods is attempted intimidation, as are chants of "Globalise the intifada".
Not every protestor is breaking the law, but some are, it's the police's job to arrest them, full stop. If the Crown fails to charge them, that's on the Crown, not the police.
Fair enough. These are the most pointless protests imaginable. Israel doesn't give a crap, so I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish. Yes, the police should do their job, but that will mean arresting groups of 100. Clearly, there needs to be better and clearer direction from above on how to address this. So I'm still inclined to put the blame on leadership over the cop on the street. It's still the cop set up for failure.
Nope. It means arresting the most egregious examples, very publicly, and throwing the book at them. If you're struggling to find them, look for a megaphone. They often have them.
Except I am not singling out just the cop on the beat, I am generically using the word police, so it could be any police officer, from Chief of Police to guys on the street.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dominic Cardy was arrested and charged with disturbing the peace because he attended a Toronto "Free Palestine" protest chanting, "Free Palestine from Hamas" (a designated terrorist group.) The Israeli flag was being burned a few yards away, and Cardy claims (with some video evidence) he was assaulted by protestors.
I was near enough to the Vancouver Art Gallery during a protest to hear hate speech directed at Jewish people. It was black letter law, and the police stood by. Given the circumstances, to this day I don't understand why a senior officer familiar with hate crimes wasn't there when the well advertised event started, a strategy a 10 year old might have contrived. Maybe the author could explain?
I've watched traffic deliberately disrupted in Victoria countless times by a few people, at the expense of nearly the whole city, and also heard hate speech. When I asked an officer why this was ok, I was told to "move along."
The consistency seems to be the police would prefer to make problems go away as much as possible, with little regard to the law. Sure the job is hard. Many jobs are very hard. It's also true the average police in Victoria earn well over 6 figures, and have a lot of training. What level of professionalism and diligence should we expect?
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 think this points back to my suspicion that the entire "woke" movement, which you vividly describe above, was the result of a psyop conducted by enemies of the West to undermine and weaken our societies and institutions.
What better way undermine your enemies than to leverage their tolerance and diversity against them, creating massive division and hatred, causing their own citizens to tear down everything that allows society and government to function?
No evidence it was really foreign powers doing it. My read is kind of the same as Lasch, Douthat and others — liberalism has the seeds of its own destruction in it. It was us that did this to ourselves.
When your society is struggling to grind its way out of poverty, people are naturally more unified and working toward a common goal, but there are a lot of inequalities (of outcome) that are accepted during that phase of societal development.
But prosperity and tolerance gives people the freedom to ask: why exactly aren’t there 50% women in CEO jobs? And similar questions about racial inequalities, Indigenous land rights, why we’re emitting carbon and not prioritizing future generations on environmental justice, and so on.
Then, failing to see a path by which the slow arc toward justice of liberalism can rectify those inequalities and being unwilling to contemplate that some of them may not be solvable, they question the entire foundations of society. They think they’re building paradise by tearing down an unjust structure, just like all utopian revolutionaries throughout history have thought.
They had their hands on the controls from 2012-2022 or so; our current predicament is the result.
(Obviously I disagree with all of this and consider myself a classical liberal)
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.
“… make decisions… they may be thrown under the bus …”
Making the right decision regardless of the consequences takes courage and a moral spine. You don’t make the right decisions based on what someone else might say or do.
There are certain things where we can absolutely demand 100% heroism of police officers without any caveats (contrast the two Mounties who immediately charged into Tumbler Ridge thus saving many lives vs. the coward who let the children of Uvalde die). But in situations like this, it's reasonable to point out that a demand for courage paired with potentially throwing the officer under the bus in the future is unfair.
What is clear is that the deescalation model is broken for situations like this.
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.
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.
If you have to go to a provincial or federal government to stop a demonstration, you have already lost. The decision has to be made on the ground, by officers with eyes on the situation. Escalation of resources for enforcement should be procedurally unambiguous.
This way you don't get into the situation where elected officials are busy interpreting polling results to determine whether they will enforce an intervention. Protesters are organized such that getting a provincial or preferably federal government involved is a win. It provides more visibility for their cause.
It doesn't matter if they are First Nations or neo Nazis, same rules apply.
Kudos to The Line for printing this rebuttal. I do have some sympathy for the difficult position officers are in, but only to a point. Officers sign up knowing it is an extremely difficult job. There's a reason I'm not a police officer - I admire many who I've known over the years.
As many other commenters have pointed out, the laws regarding so-called peaceful protest have been enforced VERY inconsistently from day to day and jurisdiction to jurisdiction and issue to issue being protested. Race/ethnicity & ideology are often the root causes of this inconsistency, and cynical politicians influencing the courts and law enforcement make the problem pervasive. We are CLEARLY NOT all equal under the law in Canada.
If Canada ends up with a Bondi Beach style attack against Canadians of Jewish heritage, will police departments and individual policemen regret gradually emboldening those behind the attack by rationalizing the previous months of gradually escalating rhetoric & public antisemitism? I'd like to think so. Like Matt, I think a Bondi-style attack in this environment is increasingly likely, if not inevitable.
Canada's moral relativism will consume us. In fact, the consumption is well underway.
The author nails why first responder, paramilitary and military recruitment has become more challenging. Democratic institutions and their members wear the shame projected upon them by those who are descended from or identify with those who are deemed victims of the system. Someone once said perfect is the enemy of the good. Democracy is not perfect but it is certainly better than the alternatives. Those uneducated in the alternatives or a grounding in history put us all at risk.
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.
What do you do when a decent percentage of the population (and an even higher percentage of the big cities) really does think that global Jewry has a hand in propping up and supporting the genocide-state of Israel and thinks that these threatening protests, attacks on synagogues, etc. are fair game as part of the global intifadah?
The politicians wouldn’t look the other way on the intimidating protests and throw police under the bus if 99% of the Canadian population was deadset against these attacks. The numbers are way more scary than that in the big cities.
The enemy is us (where “us” is the Canadian population / especially the Toronto population). We’re the ones electing the politicians — especially at municipal council level — that give police an impossible task and won’t condemn the protests.
I don't care. Enforce the law.
My point is that something like 30 or 40% of your fellow citizens in Toronto don’t *want* them to enforce the laws here because they think the greater struggle and fighting the state of Israel is more important than local laws.
None of this would happen if we had societal unity on these topics and 99% of people agreed with you.
I’m not defending these views, I’m just trying to say the state of play, even if it’s a depressing reality
Enforce the law. End of.
Assuming they ever pass the new "online harms" and other laws lowering the bar to censor "hate speech" I'm sure it will be equally and fairly applied and not at all used to persecute anti government voices while giving the posters with the Jewish caricatures taken directly from Der Sturmer a pass.
Guaranteed they will not enforce 'online harms' because they ain't enforcing the shit happening on the streets and in Jewish neighborhoods. This gives government the appearance of doing something whilst doing nothing at all.
As KRM points out, it ALSO gives the government wide and sweeping powers to stifle dissent, which is not a small thing - and not at all typical of a democratic and free society.
Canadians seem too distracted by Orange Man Bad to notice the authoritarian State with centralized controls being instituted and solidified right in front of our faces.
By the time Canadians wake up to what the government is currently doing, it will be illegal to openly protest against the government, or say anything which counters the government narrative.
Canada was once a great country, but we have failed ourselves at the ballot box this past decade, and we are now on a very bad path...
Canada is not an authoritarian state, you must be mistaken. Were this an authoritarian state we simply would not be having a conversation using this means.
Let's see how it goes once the government passes its next few Bills.
We're seeing a free preview over in the UK, where they passed basically these same laws three years ago, and tens of thousands of people are currently behind bars for things they said online.
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.
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.
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.
It’s more like “don’t arrest them because your personal details will be posted on BlueSky, a vicious online crowd will attempt to ruin your life, and the politicians will put pressure on your boss (police chief) to not defend you and indeed fire you”
We cannot solve this without societal unity on what level of protest is acceptable and clear direction. Police are in an impossible position.
The police have helped put themselves into the impossible position. They have under policed, and over police, this means that trust in the police is failing, and that's on them.
People have been jailed for online threats in Canada, if they don't, it's on the Crown for not doing their job.
Here's the thing I keep saying "it's the job of the police to enforce the law, it's the job of the Crown to convict law breakers, and it's the government's job to create the law.".
If the police fail in their role, does it really matter what the Crown or the government do?
I disagree. It’s not on individual police chiefs or officers if they don’t make arrests if their bosses aren’t protecting them from reprisal by an angry online mob. That is expecting too much of people, even professionals like police.
We ask these people to do a dangerous job that has risk of injury, we cannot ask them to do it under conditions of being blamed for enforcing laws that they didn’t decide but that a big percentage of people think are unjust. We need the political masters to have the courage to enforce or change the law, and then cops will follow suit.
Maybe if they don't agree to the laws they are enforcing, they should go to Walmart and become greeters. Police being cowardly over enforcing the laws is how we got into this situation.
Your argument is silly, much like my rebuttal is.
If a large percentage of people consider these laws unjust, they should have the ability to elect politicians to change them. Or, is it a loud minority who wants to have the freedom to chant death threats to Jewish people that think these laws unjust?
I do appreciate that you are portraying the police as the poor victims in this.
Ah, but what if they aren't being violent.....just intimidating?
If...
I've attended, unintentionally, 3 events. At all three there was hate speech directed against Jewish people with no consequences. This is the problem and all the whataboutism ain't changing it. Many of these cruel morons belong in jail and they're getting a free pass.
Section 423 of the Criminal Code seems to fit.
Maybe, but there's a tightrope to walk...."Exceptions: Attending a place simply to obtain or communicate information is generally not considered "watching or besetting" under this section.
Hate speech is black letter law, and those responsible should be jailed urgently.
Sure, but is this the game we are going to play?
Marching and chanting "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" through Jewish neighbourhoods is attempted intimidation, as are chants of "Globalise the intifada".
Not every protestor is breaking the law, but some are, it's the police's job to arrest them, full stop. If the Crown fails to charge them, that's on the Crown, not the police.
Fair enough. These are the most pointless protests imaginable. Israel doesn't give a crap, so I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish. Yes, the police should do their job, but that will mean arresting groups of 100. Clearly, there needs to be better and clearer direction from above on how to address this. So I'm still inclined to put the blame on leadership over the cop on the street. It's still the cop set up for failure.
Nope. It means arresting the most egregious examples, very publicly, and throwing the book at them. If you're struggling to find them, look for a megaphone. They often have them.
Except I am not singling out just the cop on the beat, I am generically using the word police, so it could be any police officer, from Chief of Police to guys on the street.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dominic Cardy was arrested and charged with disturbing the peace because he attended a Toronto "Free Palestine" protest chanting, "Free Palestine from Hamas" (a designated terrorist group.) The Israeli flag was being burned a few yards away, and Cardy claims (with some video evidence) he was assaulted by protestors.
I was near enough to the Vancouver Art Gallery during a protest to hear hate speech directed at Jewish people. It was black letter law, and the police stood by. Given the circumstances, to this day I don't understand why a senior officer familiar with hate crimes wasn't there when the well advertised event started, a strategy a 10 year old might have contrived. Maybe the author could explain?
I've watched traffic deliberately disrupted in Victoria countless times by a few people, at the expense of nearly the whole city, and also heard hate speech. When I asked an officer why this was ok, I was told to "move along."
The consistency seems to be the police would prefer to make problems go away as much as possible, with little regard to the law. Sure the job is hard. Many jobs are very hard. It's also true the average police in Victoria earn well over 6 figures, and have a lot of training. What level of professionalism and diligence should we expect?
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 think this points back to my suspicion that the entire "woke" movement, which you vividly describe above, was the result of a psyop conducted by enemies of the West to undermine and weaken our societies and institutions.
What better way undermine your enemies than to leverage their tolerance and diversity against them, creating massive division and hatred, causing their own citizens to tear down everything that allows society and government to function?
No evidence it was really foreign powers doing it. My read is kind of the same as Lasch, Douthat and others — liberalism has the seeds of its own destruction in it. It was us that did this to ourselves.
When your society is struggling to grind its way out of poverty, people are naturally more unified and working toward a common goal, but there are a lot of inequalities (of outcome) that are accepted during that phase of societal development.
But prosperity and tolerance gives people the freedom to ask: why exactly aren’t there 50% women in CEO jobs? And similar questions about racial inequalities, Indigenous land rights, why we’re emitting carbon and not prioritizing future generations on environmental justice, and so on.
Then, failing to see a path by which the slow arc toward justice of liberalism can rectify those inequalities and being unwilling to contemplate that some of them may not be solvable, they question the entire foundations of society. They think they’re building paradise by tearing down an unjust structure, just like all utopian revolutionaries throughout history have thought.
They had their hands on the controls from 2012-2022 or so; our current predicament is the result.
(Obviously I disagree with all of this and consider myself a classical liberal)
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.
“… make decisions… they may be thrown under the bus …”
Making the right decision regardless of the consequences takes courage and a moral spine. You don’t make the right decisions based on what someone else might say or do.
You make them because of who you are.
There are certain things where we can absolutely demand 100% heroism of police officers without any caveats (contrast the two Mounties who immediately charged into Tumbler Ridge thus saving many lives vs. the coward who let the children of Uvalde die). But in situations like this, it's reasonable to point out that a demand for courage paired with potentially throwing the officer under the bus in the future is unfair.
What is clear is that the deescalation model is broken for situations like this.
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.
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.
If you have to go to a provincial or federal government to stop a demonstration, you have already lost. The decision has to be made on the ground, by officers with eyes on the situation. Escalation of resources for enforcement should be procedurally unambiguous.
This way you don't get into the situation where elected officials are busy interpreting polling results to determine whether they will enforce an intervention. Protesters are organized such that getting a provincial or preferably federal government involved is a win. It provides more visibility for their cause.
It doesn't matter if they are First Nations or neo Nazis, same rules apply.
Kudos to The Line for printing this rebuttal. I do have some sympathy for the difficult position officers are in, but only to a point. Officers sign up knowing it is an extremely difficult job. There's a reason I'm not a police officer - I admire many who I've known over the years.
As many other commenters have pointed out, the laws regarding so-called peaceful protest have been enforced VERY inconsistently from day to day and jurisdiction to jurisdiction and issue to issue being protested. Race/ethnicity & ideology are often the root causes of this inconsistency, and cynical politicians influencing the courts and law enforcement make the problem pervasive. We are CLEARLY NOT all equal under the law in Canada.
If Canada ends up with a Bondi Beach style attack against Canadians of Jewish heritage, will police departments and individual policemen regret gradually emboldening those behind the attack by rationalizing the previous months of gradually escalating rhetoric & public antisemitism? I'd like to think so. Like Matt, I think a Bondi-style attack in this environment is increasingly likely, if not inevitable.
Canada's moral relativism will consume us. In fact, the consumption is well underway.
The author nails why first responder, paramilitary and military recruitment has become more challenging. Democratic institutions and their members wear the shame projected upon them by those who are descended from or identify with those who are deemed victims of the system. Someone once said perfect is the enemy of the good. Democracy is not perfect but it is certainly better than the alternatives. Those uneducated in the alternatives or a grounding in history put us all at risk.