ABUSES OF THE TORONTO POLICE IN JUNE 2010

The white backing behind some of the text is of no significance as to the text itself as it is merely an anomaly in the printing.

The 2010 G-20 Toronto Summit was the fourth meeting of the G-20 heads of government, in discussion of the global financial system and the world economy, which took place at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, during June 26–27, 2010. The event was part of the largest and most expensive security operation in Canadian history. The total cost for preparations, including security, infrastructure, and hospitality, was determined to be approximately $858 million which was paid for by the Canadian taxpayers. 

It goes without saying that any such summits require tight security. In that sense, the security was quite satisfactory for the most part. None of the government heads were bothered or in any danger. In fact, they were all in a protective cocoon.

The problem in this particular Summit was that the Canadian government left the security of the government heads it to amateurs—which turned out to be the Toronto Police Service. And like amateurs, the Toronto police lost control of many of their police officers who subsequently abused a great many innocent citizens during the two days of the Summit. The police acted as if they were the police in a country where the rights of citizens were non-existent. But Canadian citizens have rights and are very conscious of them and they express real displeasure against anyone who abuses their rights. I will get to those police abuses shortly.

Security of the G20 Summit

A retired judge’s report on the fiasco found that Toronto police had become preoccupation with policing the Interdiction Zone, where a massive fence served as a buffer between the summit site and the surrounding Outer Zone. This created a "policing vacuum" in the Outer Zone, where the major protests were held and the damage created by the Black Bloc took place.

Security officials began preparing for the summit security in Toronto around mid-February 2010. That left them approximately three and a half months to prepare all the security for the summit. That clearly is not enough time. All of the UN congresses that I have attended as a speaker in Europe, Africa, South America and South East Asia, the hosting governments spent two years preparing for the security of all the officials and consultants from around the world attending these Congresses. I only know of one incident where something went wrong and that took place in 1980 in Caracas where one of the Congresses was held. Two delegates were robbed within a hundred feet of the main entrance to the building.

The police fiasco can be blamed on three aspects of bungling. The first one was that in the Toronto Police Service, there are thugs who should never ever be members of any police force but they were hired anyway. The second was that the police hierarchy didn`t know what they were doing and the third was that the government of Canada should have prepared the security of the summit long before they actually began the preparations three and a half months prior to the summit beginning.

General policing and patrolling was provided by the Toronto Police Service, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Canadian Forces, while the Peel Regional Police aided in policing at Toronto Pearson International Airport in Mississauga during the arrivals of delegates. As many as 10,000 uniformed police officers, 1,000 security guards, and several Canadian military forces were to be deployed during the summit. The total cost for security at both the G8 and the G-20 summits was determined to be $1 billion, paid entirely by the federal Crown-in-Council, (which is really the Canadian taxpayers) excluding the costs of any possible damage to local business (which was quite extensive).

A security perimeter, beginning with the outer boundary, specifically bordered by King Street to the north, Lake Shore Boulevard to the south, Yonge Street to the east, and Spadina Avenue to the west, where vehicles would be restricted during the summit dates. On average, the fences were approximately two or more blocks away from the conference centre. Residents who lived within the security zone were issued registration cards prior to the summit and other pedestrians who wished to enter the security zone were only able to do so at one of 38 checkpoints, where they were required to present two pieces of photo identification and provide justification for entry. The area surrounding the Metro Toronto Convention Centre itself was fenced and off-limits to civilians and protesters. The 3-metre (10 foot) high fence was built at a cost of $5.5-million and installation began on June 7^th. The Toronto Police Service installed 77 additional closed-circuit television security cameras in the area and purchased four Long Range Acoustic Devices which were to be in use exclusively during the summit. It was later decided that they would not be used. The authorities decided however on using water cannons for riot control but they too were not used.

A former film studio located on Eastern Avenue was designated as a temporary detention centre for individuals arrested during the summit. The Toronto Police Service announced that Trinity Bellwoods Park would be the designated protest area, but following opposition from local residents, the police relocated the designated protest zone to the northern part of Queen's Park which is approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 km) from the conference centre. Canada Post declared that it would remove post boxes in the security zone Toronto Parking Authority removed some parking meters as well. Small trees along sidewalks around the convention centre were removed to prevent them from being used as weapons by protesters. Other removed municipal property include 745 newspaper boxes, 200 public trash cans, 70 mailboxes, 29 bus shelters, and 5 public information boards.

Canada's largest banks, which are headquartered in Downtown Toronto, made plans to have employees work at alternate sites outside their downtown facilities, such as at home or in other branches. The Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) announced the closure of seven liquor stores in the downtown core during the summit as a precaution to looting. The PATH, CN Tower, University of Toronto, Art Gallery of Ontario, and the Ontario Legislative Building were also closed to public during the summit dates.

Nineteen countries were represented by their heads of state along with heads of the European Council and the European Commission.

There are protesters who will protest at any event, even if the event has nothing whatsoever to do with their protests. Protests began one week ahead of the summit, organized by groups including Oxfam Canada and the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, and other protesters raising issues such as poverty, capitalism and globalization. These kinds of protests in my opinion are germane to the discussions being dealt with by the heads of the nations attending the conference. However, I don’t see the relevance of the other protesters who were advocates for indigenous rights, gay rights, and other non-financial controversial issues.

Damage to stores and banks

Along came the Black Bloc which comprised of hoodlums who are anarchists. Their main aim (as always) is to destroy private and public property. They show up at these events like cockroaches to a feast. Calling these thugs protesters is like calling a wayside chapel the Basilica of St. Peters in the City of Rome. Peaceful protests were followed by Black Bloc tactics as individuals dressed in black in that they at first mingled in the crowd and finally dispersed from the crowd to do their thing. For the most part, the targets of the Black Bloc were specific and symbolic. They began damaging the windows of particular businesses across Downtown Toronto that were mostly fast food chains, retail stores and banks, as well as local businesses and corporate companies. As the crowd tore across Queen Street, the Black Bloc hoodlums also hammered police cruisers and set them on fire and damaged media vehicles.  

Now where were the police when these hoodlums were wreaking their fury on all those buildings? With the exception of a few officers, the rest of them where in the area of the fence, a considerable distance from the mayhem that was taking place elsewhere. There the police officers stood with their rhetorical fingers up their butts yakking with each other and oblivious as to what was going on in other areas of downtown Toronto. 

The violence came despite the $1 billion price tag for security at the summit. That is because the hierarchy of the Toronto Police Service in their collective stupidity; didn’t think that anyone would damage the stores, buildings and police and media vehicles. And to think that as taxpayers, the citizens of Toronto pay these stupid louts salaries that well exceed a hundred thousand dollars each. Where did the city find these louts? Did the search begin and end at a daycare centre established for mentally challenged children?

Toronto Police Services Board

This key civilian oversight agency was scandalously clueless and useless during the G20 police fiasco. The members of the Board also stood by with their fingers up their butts when in fact they should have played a more important role in the planning of the security of the G20 summit. The members of the Board functioned inside a bubble of profound ignorance, forsaking powers granted to them by Ontario’s Police Act.

A report, by former justice John Morden and commissioned by the police board, found that “the board became a mere bystander in a process it was supposed to lead.” In his report he wrote, “"The lessons learned are that the civilian oversight function of the board is not working in accordance with the law and sound principles of governance."

The chairman of the Toronto Police Services Board, Alok Mukherjee, struck a similar tone earlier. Speaking after Morden presented the report, he acknowledged that mistakes were made, welcomed the report's recommendations, and he said the board would look very closely at the proposed changes of which there were 38.

The report found that the board misinterpreted its mandate, and was too sensitive in its interpretation of a section of the Police Services Act to not direct the chief on specific operational decisions. Police services boards can and should be more involved in operational matters in working with chiefs of police.

In Morden’s report, he wrote, “Information, including operational information, is a key element in what the board requires in the proper discharge of its statutory responsibility to oversee the Toronto Police Service.”

He also said in his report, “In practice, however, the board has wrongly misinterpreted the Act and has been reluctant to ask any questions when it comes to policing operations. It is this mistaken view of the board’s role that prevented members from asking the right questions to ensure proper civilian oversight during the G20 planning process.” The Police Services Act of 1990 strengthened the board’s governance powers. It removed the structural buffer that had previously placed policing beyond the bounds of all-inclusive civilian oversight. That legislation, which replaced the earlier Police Act, meant there would no longer be a distinct demarcation between policies and procedures.

The misunderstanding about the role of the police board stems from the language of the only limitation put on the Board’s power, which states, “The board shall not direct the chief of police with respect to specific operational decisions or with respect to the day-to-day operation of the police force. Chief Bill Blair agreed, that that means the civilians may not micro-manage police operations as they unfold. In other words, the civilian board could not override the police’s chain of command and start ordering constables and detectives around. Simply put, this means that the board cannot micro manage the day-to-day operations of the police service.

Morden also said in his report, “The Board was embedded in the existing culture during the G20 planning process. The criticisms have to be understood in the light of this.” The existing culture during the G20 summit was to do nothing and let the chief of police do it all by himself without consulting the Board members. We all know how that worked. It didn’t.

The Toronto Police Service's civilian oversight body became a "virtually voiceless entity" throughout the G20 planning process. In retired judge John Morden’s review of the fiasco, he wrote in part;

“The board was left without a clear sense of the framework and plan for policing of the summit. In effect, the board became a mere bystander in a process it was supposed to lead.”

Board chairman Alok Mukherjee acknowledged that he was unaware of the specific policing functions the Toronto force had agreed to assume for the G20 summit.

City councillor Pam McConnell, also a board member during the G20 summit said that members were repeatedly told not to interfere in police operations. I don‘t know what twit told them that. She also said in part that the Board also needed its own lawyers and advisers to understand that the members of the Board are not pushing in the wrong direction and that it had a right to that information. Currently, the board is advised by city lawyers who also advise the Toronto police, which is a potential conflict of interest,

Chief Blair said that communication between him and board members has been “excellent”. He added that the division between policy and operations is “not such a fine line.” As an example, the chief also pointed to the board’s role in helping shape procedures and policies on the use of Tasers by police officers. Blair said he “absolutely” sees the role of the board as overseeing police operations. Why then did the Board not also see that same role as Blair did?

Years earlier, the Board fought tooth-and-nail to impose effective civilian oversight on the police department and its chief, bravely confronting a police culture that aggressively resisted any limitations on its unfettered authority to do as it pleased, and do so without any form of accountability.

The Board could have asked the chief questions that would have solicited answers on what might happen if a riot erupted, how the various levels of security would be integrated during the summit, what steps police would take to control demonstrators and  how the chain of command would function. This they chose not to do. The only thing it did was to enquire about the sound cannon that was planned to be deployed in order to disperse unruly crowds and the sound cannon’s  specifications.

 If the oversight board that doesn’t even understand its own function in providing oversight, then how would it be able to spot the weaknesses in a security plan for the G20 summit that the police officers themselves missed? The truly disturbing conclusion is that the Board, didn’t even understand its own mandate, and wrongly concluded that it didn’t have the right to ask the questions they should have been asking.

The misunderstanding about the role of the police board stems from the language of the only limitation put on the Board’s power, which states, “The board shall not direct the chief of police with respect to specific operational decisions or with respect to the day-to-day operation of the police force. Chief Bill Blair agreed, that that means the civilians may not micro-manage police operations as they unfold. In other words, the civilian board could not override the police’s chain of command and start ordering constables and detectives around. Simply put, this means that the board cannot micro manage the day-to-day operations of the police service.

If the oversight board that doesn’t even understand its own function in providing oversight, then how would it be able to spot the weaknesses in a security plan for the G20 summit that the police officers themselves missed? The truly disturbing conclusion is that the Board, didn’t even understand its own mandate, and wrongly concluded that it didn’t have the right to ask the questions they should have been asking.

 Unfortunately the Board interpreted its own mandate wrongly. They felt that they were unable to interfere — as in make suggestions or ask questions — about operational matters.

 The security plan for the G20 summit had many flaws, such as police training materials that were overly focused on protesters as being a violent force, communications between the various police forces which was lacking, coordination of movement and responses during the protest was also lacking, and of course, the temporary detention facility that was entirely inadequate for the task. Even if the existing Board had been actively overseeing these various details, nothing would have turned out better. After all what do they know about crowd control, security for government officials, communication between police forces  and the design and operation of a temporary detention facility? They simply would have nodded their heads like the dog in the car window by agreeing to whatever the chief told them.

 The Toronto Police Service's civilian oversight body became a "virtually voiceless entity" throughout the G20 planning process. In retired judge John Morden’s review of the fiasco, he wrote in part;

“The board was left without a clear sense of the framework and plan for policing of the summit. In effect, the board became a mere bystander in a process it was supposed to lead.”

Board chairman Alok Mukherjee acknowledged that he was unaware of the specific policing functions the Toronto force had agreed to assume for the G20 summit.

Police Abuse (Kettling of citizens)

Kettling is a police tactic to control crowds where officers surround a group of people on all sides. In some instances, police direct protesters toward a predetermined location. As the crowd grows, the police presence tightens around them.

 During the G20 police fiasco, on the final evening of the G20 summit, lines of riot police boxed in hundreds of people at the intersection of Spadina Avenue and Queen Street West in downtown Toronto and held them there for up to four hours while it poured rain.

Thirty-seven people filed complaints with Ontario’s police oversight body (Office of the Independent Police Review Director—OIPRD) over their treatment during the kettling of the citizens. A report on the incidents says that the operational responsibility lies with Superintendent Mark Fenton, one of two Toronto officers who served as “incident commanders” during the G20 and had control of the police officers in streets.

Fenton’s order to keep the group of protesters, bystanders and even some journalists boxed in at Queen Street West and Spadina Avenue “in a severe rain storm that included thunder and lightning was unreasonable, unnecessary and unlawful,” according to the document. It violated the detainees’ Charter of Rights al rights against arbitrary detention and as such, Supt. Fenton was negligent in his duties as a police officer.

Fenton’s explanation to investigators for his decision was that he feared police riot squads weren’t mobile enough to react to “ongoing attacks” by what he believed he saw as “terrorists” committing acts of vandalism in Toronto’s streets. He believed that the tactic of isolating, containing the movement of the terrorists/protesters was required to stop the ongoing attacks and prevent new attacks. But there was no evidence that Black Bloc terrorists had been committing acts of damage and terrorism in the area of that particular area of downtown Toronto.

 After two failed attempts to breach the walls of riot police, some of the black-clad protesters were seen in the Queen St. and Spadina Ave. intersection.  But I have looked at the pictures of the scene at that intersection and I only saw about ten people wearing black clothing and I am not convinced that they were all members of the Black Bloc. For one thing, the members of the Black Bloc wore hoodies and covered their faces with ski masks. If the police saw people wearing black clothing, they could have singled them out and questioned them and even searched them. They certainly didn’t need to hold hundreds of innocent people in an intersection for four hours during a violent thunderstorm. In fact several hundred of them were actually handcuffed by the police.

 Many of my readers may know what was going on in Europe when most of it was under the heel of the German Nazis in the late 1930s and up to the mid-1940s. I was certainly conscious of this problem during those years. The German word, Sippenhaft refers to the Nazi principle of families sharing the responsibility for a crime committed by one of its members. A relative of the perpetrator could thus be punished in place or in addition to the perpetrator, depending on the circumstances.

 Whisper in my ear that what occurred on the 27^th of June, 2010 at the intersection of Spadina and Queen was not in some manner similar to Sippenhaft as it was applied by the Nazis. Were the innocent citizens who were in effect, collectively detained by the Toronto police in that intersection during a violent thunderstorm not being punished for the acts of hoodlums who were not even related to them in any manner whatsoever other than they were Canadians?   

 Oddly enough, there was one police officer who was at that intersection who thought the kettling of innocent citizens was definitely wrong.  He was Constable Adam Josephs who worked at Toronto’s 52 Division. Unfortunately for him, he had the unhappy distinction of being called ‘Constable Bubbles’. The reason for this was that he was at an intersection some considerable distance from the conference centre and in that intersection, a young woman was blowing bubbles at the police. Josephs made a rather foolish statement when the young woman asked if she was going to be arrested for assault for blowing bubbles at the police. He replied, “Yes, that’s right, it’s a deliberate act on your behalf. I’m going to arrest you. You knock it off with those bubbles. If you touch me with that bubble you’re going into custody.” She was not charged by him because no bubble reached the constable. Little did he know that what he said to the young woman was published in the internet world wide and I guess he will always be remembered as Constable Bubbles. If he is promoted to the rank of sergeant, he will be called Sergeant Bubbles. A moniker like that never leaves you.  However his good deed requires further explanation. When he realized that what was happening in the intersection when innocent citizens were being kettled, he assisted an elderly couple out of the kettled intersection. Unfortunately he didn’t have the authority to put an end to the kittling of the citizens in that particular intersection.

Just to show you how stupid the minds of some police officers were during the G20 event, consider this. One of the officers who didn’t agree with the kittling of citizens asked another, "Where are they going to give them a chance to disperse?" The other officer replied, "They aren't, that's the problem.”

The Toronto police belatedly made a public announcement that the police will never again use that controversial crowd control technique which was employed for the first and last time in the city’s history during last year’s G20 summit. The reason is obvious. It denies citizen’s their Charter of Rights al rights to walk peacefully on our streets.

 Police Abuse (Improper Detention Facilities)

 As previously mentioned, a former film studio located on Eastern Avenue was designated as a temporary detention centre for people arrested during the summit. The building was a long rectangular building on the south side of the street in which only a single officer was tasked with booking them which in my opinion is ludicrous. The lack of proper processes resulted in prisoners being lost within the system and prisoners not having their basic needs addressed due to inadequate staffing.

 The plan was that the facility would have the capacity to book 500 prisoners over a 24-hour period, though the facility would be capable of holding more than 1,000 people at any one time.

 The prisoner processing centre was without precedent in Ontario and, as a mass detention facility, it posed unique operational challenges that required expert planning, whom the police failed to consult considering that there are available experts about prisoner care and management at a mass facility in Canada.

When the facility was in operation, it was staffed largely by court services officers, who normally handle security and prisoner-care issues at court facilities. For this reason, they “are not usually familiar with standard procedures followed by police officers so there was confusion about booking the prisoners.

There was overcrowding, lack of food and water and access to lawyers at the temporary detention center where detainees, 1,100 of them—the majority of them held illegally—faced strip searches and had to use toilets with no doors and as such, were in full view of others walking by them.

 One prisoner spent almost 24 hours in handcuffs, and his girlfriend had her bra seized as a possible weapon.

The detention centre was described as "cold" with "barely any food or water" and "no place in the cages to even sit," and "tantamount to torture." Other allegations included harassment, lack of medical care, verbal abuse, and strip searches of females by male officers.

 Police Abuse (Improper Arrests)

The events that took place over the course of the G20 weekend resulted in the largest mass arrests in Canadian history and had a profound impact not only on the citizens of Toronto and Canada generally, but on public confidence in police as well. As it turned out, almost all of the people arrested were eventually released without any charge laid against them.

 A review by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director examined the clashes between police and the public at Queens Park, and the Graduate Students Union at the University of Toronto—amongst other areas of the city.

 The city had arranged for protesters to do their thing in the park behind the legislative buildings which as mentioned before is approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 km) from the conference centre. They should have been left alone by the police but as far as the police were concerned, that wasn’t going to happen. When the police began making arrests at Queen’s Park, it was worse than anything the general public had witnessed before in Toronto.

The arrests of the occupants of the Graduate Students' Union at the University of Toronto during the early morning hours of Sunday, June 27, 2010, were unlawful for two reasons— the police did not have the requisite grounds to believe each arrested party had committed the offence of unlawful assembly the previous day and a warrant was required to arrest a person for unlawful assembly where that person was not found actually committing the offence and no such a warrant was never obtained. This is the same thing that occurred thousands of times in Europe during the Second World War when the Nazi goons would swarm into crowds on the street and into homes searching for people they thought were anti-Nazis.

Those Toronto police goons who swarmed into the Graduate Students' Union dormitory ignored the basic rights that the people inside that the dormitory have under the Charter of Rights and for this reason, the police overstepped their authority when they stopped and searched and arrested arbitrarily those persons inside the dormitory without any legal justification whatsoever.

The RCMP (federal police) did not take part in arrests at Queen's Park, The Esplanade or the University of Toronto, nor was it involved in contentious incidents at detention and prisoner processing centres. That’s why there were very few complaints against them.

Police Abuse (physical assaults)

Numerous police officers used excessive force when arresting individuals and seemed to send a message that violence would be met with violence. The reaction of the citizens created a cycle of escalating responses from both sides.

A group of frontline Toronto police officers were charged with G20 summit related offences. According to the CBC (a national television station) 28 officers had been charged and were to appear at internal disciplinary hearings for alleged offences like unlawful arrest and use of excessive force.

Four journalists filed complaints with Ontario's police watchdog, alleging physical assaults and threats of sexual violence by police during the Toronto G20 summit. According to one of the journalist’s (Miller) complaint, the Montreal-based freelance journalist for the Dominion was covering a group of demonstrators who were detained by police in downtown Toronto when she said she was verbally abused, arrested and taken to the detention centre.

"So you think you're a journalist. You won't be a journalist after we bring you to jail," the 29-year-old recounted an officer saying to her in her complaint. "You're

going to be raped. We always like the pretty ones. We're going to wipe the grin off your face when we gang bang you. We know how the Montreal girls roll." Miller alleged that one of the arresting officers repeated the threat when she was at the detention centre. She was released about 12 hours later without any charges.

An example of acclaimed police brutality occurred during the trial and the arrest of Constable Glenn Weddell who was accused of cruelly abusing a man named Dorian Barton. Almost a year after the G20 summit in Toronto, an online article was posted on the Toronto Sun’s website enlisting its readers help. It was a striking picture that generated media attention when a Public Safety Unit police officer appeared to be beating G20 victim Dorian Barton. Joe Warmington, one of the Sun’s staff reporters writing about various G20 events, wrote in his article that policing insiders told him that with the production of the picture, newly enhanced, identifying the perpetrator would be easy. Unfortunately, that was not the case for no charges were laid against any police officers involved in the proceeding. None of the 11 ‘witness officers’ could identify the “subject officer” despite the fact that most are wearing the same Public Safety Unit patches. You’d think they’d know who they all are!’ The Toronto Sun summed up the actions against the accused Toronto police officers during the G20 as “another win for Blue Wall.”

Police later said that they provided the Special Investigations Unit (a civilian police investigation unit) with the name of the subject officer after a SIU officer zoomed in on a photograph and identified Weddell’s badge number.

Nearly a year after the G20 weekend on June 10 2011, Cont. Glenn Weddell, whose face as splashed throughout countless media outlets while officers of the same unit denied their fellow officer’s identity, was charged with assault causing bodily harm. However, Barton seemed optimistic about an apology from the charged Toronto police officer. He stated, “It’s never too late to take responsibility.”  Well that is an example of hopeless optimism.

In the case of accused police brutality and the justice served, the presence of Blue Wall Silence (also known as Blue Wall Justice) enlisted public outrage.

The public has heard for years that police officers don’t fully co-operate with SIU investigations. Statistics produced exclusively for the Toronto Star show that the vast majority of GTA police officers at the heart of an investigation refuse to give an interview and turn over their notes to the SIU.

Without full disclosure, the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) can’t examine all cases as thoroughly as it would like in efforts to determine if police are justified in their use of force when someone is seriously hurt or killed. In cases where there are no witness officers and a subject officer refuses to talk to the SIU, that’s a big problem for the SIU to solve.

However, the SIU director, Ian Scott said that he “respects” the rights of subject officers to invoke their legal rights not to consent to interviews or turn over their notes.” Unfortunately, I am forced to agree with him. Those police officers are entitled to the same protection that the general public has.

However, I do not think that not cooperating with the SIU should apply to police officer witnesses. In my opinion, if they refuse to cooperate or it is established that they lied when they claim they didn’t see any wrongdoing being committed by a subject officer or they don’t know who the subject officers are when they were right next to them and serve in the same Division, then those witness police officers should be fired and only their own contributions to their pensions should be given to them. When they leave the police service.

Barton, a 30-year-old cookie maker, alleged that he was photographing police at a Queen’s Park demonstration when he was slammed by a police officer with a riot shield and beaten with a baton, leaving him with bruises and a broken arm.

Adam Trombetta was obviously expecting a few laughs when he legally changed his family name to Nobody. Unfortunately for him, Toronto police officers aren’t known for their sense of humor. He was making a joke protest sign that June day when he looked up and saw a group of police officers rushing him. They tackled him and dragged him behind a police van. Then one officer had a boot on his head when another asked him his name. The second officer wasn’t too pleased with his answer.

 The subsequent beating occurred away from prying eyes. But Mr. Nobody’s arrest moments before was filmed by a bystander who also filmed the beating of Mr. Nobody by the police. A police officer appears to make a “striking motion” with a closed fist, which may have caused the fracture below Nobody’s right eye.

Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair went on local radio to lash out at the conclusion of the SIU that Mr. was beaten by the police officer. He insisted the video had been tampered with, and suggested Mr. Nobody had been armed. A day later, he publicly apologized. Blair said in his apology, “I have no evidence that he was armed or violent and all charges against the injured man have been withdrawn. I regret the false impression that my comments may have created and apologize to Mr. Nobody.”

The Special Investigations Unit didn’t lay charges against the arresting officers. The agency’s investigators were unable to learn the identity of those who might have used excessive force in arresting Mr. Nobody. Officers who were nearby the beating that took place might have shed light on the incident but they refused to cooperate with the SUI investigators.

On November 30, 2010, the SIU reopened its investigation based upon the receipt of the original video made by videographer, Mr. Bridge. It will also be recalled that Mr. Bridge came forward after the Chief of Police said on a CBC radio morning show that his video had been significantly tampered with. The original video was examined and found to contain imagery of a much higher resolution than the uploaded Youtube version.

Director Scott stated, "During this part of the reopened investigation, twelve witness officers said by Toronto Police Service to be in the vicinity of and/or involved in the Nobody arrest were interviewed. They were shown the Bridge video of the incident, and stills taken from other videos. And yet, every one of then claimed that they couldn’t positively identify themselves as being depicted in the videos, nor could they identify the other involved officers. However, through an analysis of the video imagery and an interview with another officer whose name was provided by the Toronto Police Service, the SIU was able to positively identify Constable Andalib-Goortani as the officer that struck Mr. Nobody. He was subsequently charged with the offence of assault with a weapon on December 21, 2010.

What is really shameful about this incident is that those police officers who were standing nearby refused to even identify themselves in the video. Their honesty and integrity is non-existent, an attribute that is absolutely required of all police officers.

This is how this constable got named as the man who struck Mr. Nobody. When an officer was looking at the image of the assault on Mr. Nobody on the computer screen, he said to his sergeant who was at that moment passing by, “Hey, take a look at this.” The officer turned the monitor so the sergeant could take a better gander. The sergeant recognized the face on the screen and said, “Oh, that’s Babak.” (Andalib-Goortani) That information was passed onto the SIU and subsequently the constable was charged. He was later charged with another count of assault with a weapon during the G20 summit demonstration against Wyndham Bettencourt-McCarthy.

All five officers involved in one way or another with this case face disciplinary proceedings. At the time of the writing of this article, their hearings haven’t yet been scheduled.

A Toronto veterinarian says police conducting a raid on anti-G20 protesters stormed into his home early Saturday, confronted him at gunpoint and handcuffed him — only to release him when they realized he had not been involved in any protest activity. Dr. John Booth said the raid occurred at around 4 a.m. Saturday at his family's apartment in a three-story house at 143 Westminster Ave. near Roncesvalles Avenue. Booth, 30, lives with his wife, Dr. Hannah Booth, 31, and his six-month-old son in the top two floors of the house. "I thought it was a bad dream. Basically I woke up, and there were four police officers in my room,"

A G20 incident caught on video showed a York Regional Police officer telling a protester that he is no longer in Canada and has no civil rights is under investigation. The officer also said, “There is no civil rights here in this area. How many times do you gotta be told that?”

 John Pruyn, a Revenue Canada employee, was at the G20 protests in Toronto when he was told to “move” by police. Pruyn, who only has one leg, says he was unable to stand up fast enough to avoid arrest. The 57-year-old amputee later said that he was “brutalized” and “humiliated” by police patrolling the G20 summit when they confiscated his prosthetic leg, labeled it as a “weapon” and ordered him to “hop” into a paddy wagon.

 The Five Metre Law

 The Executive Council of Ontario (provincial cabinet) had implemented a regulation under the provincial Public Works Protection Act on June 2 granting the police sweeping powers of arrest within a specific boundary during the summit; the rule that was said to designate the security fence as a public works and, as such, allow any police officer or guard to arrest any individual failing or refusing to provide identification within five metres of the security zone. The regulation was requested by Toronto Police Service chief Bill Blair and debate in the legislature was not required. Orders in Council such as this one are announced in the Ontario Gazette, but the next issue of that publication was to be published after the order expired on June 28, a week after the summit ended. The new law came to light after a York University graduate student, who claimed to have been simply "exploring" the security zone but who did not provide identification when confronted by police, was arrested on June 24 under the regulation. He later vowed to file a lawsuit against the law once the summit ended. The Cabinet later confirmed that the new laws did not give special powers to the police and that those who were believed to have been arrested under the Public Works and Protection Act were in fact arrested under the Criminal Code of Canada. The police chief later admitted that, despite media coverage, no such five-metre rule ever existed in the law. Whatever the law of rule was, it did not prohibit anyone from standing right next to the fence. But those who did; were arrested if they didn’t show the police ID. Incidentally, in Canada, no one is required to show ID unless they are driving a motor vehicle, seeking medical treatment or is opening a bank account. 

 Concluding Remarks

The common logo one finds on police vehicles are the words To Protect and Serve.

Well, there were many police officers at the G20 summit who neither protected nor served the citizens in Toronto. They were thugs who were no different that the Brown Shirts in Germany just before they were dissolved as an organization by Adolf Hitler. Those Brown Shirts thugs in Germany also ran rampant on the streets just as the Toronto police thugs did during the G20 summit with their beatings and otherwise harassment of innocent citizens.

 Much can be learned from this terrible police fiasco.

 First, the Police Board should exercise more oversight on police matters.

 Second, the penalty for police officers who hide their ID badges on their uniforms should be suspended for one month without pay and not simply deducted one day’s pay.

 Third, more training about the rights of citizens should be taught to the police officers at least once a year since new laws and court decisions re the rights of citizens are pronounced every year.

 Fourth, hearings of police officers who assault or otherwise seriously abuse citizens should be heard earlier, at least within six months so that the charges won’t be thrown out because of the time limitation.

 Fifth, any police officer who is convicted of an assault that causes any marks of any kind and it is determined that the assault was unnecessary should be dismissed from the Police Service. They should not be given a second chance.

 Sixth, any police officer who is a witness and who refuses to cooperate with the SIU should be dismissed from the Toronto Police Service.

 Seventh, police officers who are facing hearings for serious misconduct should not be paid while they are waiting for the final outcome of their hearings. If they are permitted to be paid in the interim and they are found guilty and dismissed from the police service, the money given to them should be clawed back. That will certainly act as a deterrent. If they are acquitted of any wrongdoing, and they weren’t paid in the interim, they should get their back pay with interest.

Eighth, this is a good time to reconsider the qualifications and experience of those tasked with overseeing the police. The board should comprise of five members which includes a lawyer who is familiar with the rights of citizens, a criminologist who is familiar with crimes, a sociologist who is familiar with family matters, a retired police chief from another city who is familiar with the role of police, and the mayor of Toronto. No one should be chosen to sit on the board on the basis that the person is a politician other than the mayor unless that person has the experience listed in my proposal.

The retired judge’s report found that Toronto police became preoccupied with policing the Interdiction Zone, where a massive fence served as a buffer between the summit site and the surrounding Outer Zone. This created a "policing vacuum" in the Outer Zone, where the major protests were held and the damage created by the Black Bloc took place.

The retired judge’s report found that Toronto police became preoccupied with policing the Interdiction Zone, where a massive fence served as a buffer between the summit site and the surrounding Outer Zone. This created a "policing vacuum" in the Outer Zone, where the major protests were held and the damage created by the Black Bloc took place. The police action in this instance was an act of sheer stupidity.

W.S. Gilbert when writing the operetta, The Pirates of Penzance wrote the following words in Act II. “A policeman`s lot is not a happy one.” That also applies to the citizens of Toronto, Ontario and Canada when the world learned that the Toronto Police officers (only some of them of course) are thugs. As Canadians, we don’t need that kind of bad publicity. We also don’t need those bad cops. The problem is that some of those thugs revere the good old days when beating citizens was the norm of the day. Those days are gone—or are they?