The Thin Line: State authority, citizens’ rights and the Toronto G20 Summit

Much attention has been given to the unlawful detainment of protesters at the recent G20 summit in Toronto. But what exactly is the bigger picture?

From June 26, 2010 to June 27, 2010, leaders from across the world met in the heart of Canada’s financial district to discuss the challenges facing the global financial system. Because of the significance of the meeting and its ability to attract important politicians, the G20 summit drew protesters from a wide variety of different causes. The vast majority of these protesters were peaceful activists.

Unfortunately, a small amount of radical protesters also descended upon Toronto, and used the pretext of the occasion to destroy property and riot. Dubbed the “Black bloc” by the media, these small splinter groups of young men and women donned black clothing and hid their faces behind masks as they incited riots in downtown Toronto.

As a result of the violence that ensued, many protesters were placed under arrest. While no doubt a few of those arrested were likely responsible for vandalism and breaching the peace, it appears the authorities in Ontario detained many people who claim to have been protesting peacefully. The Toronto Star has published some of these disturbing stories, scenarios in which innocent protesters were the victims of police excess. Media reports claim that between 400 people (according to CBC), to just under 1,000 (according to Global Toronto) were arrested. Many protesters are claiming their rights have been denied and that the police were abusive.

This begs the critical question: where should Canadians draw the line between the state’s authority to maintain societal order, and its citizens’ rights under the Charter and common law?

We are constantly bombarded with two sides of the same story. On one side, the authorities of the state like the police, RCMP and government argue the police presence was successful in preventing widespread rioting and vandalism. On the other side, protesters and civil liberty groups argue that the rights of the innocent were too widely trampled, and that in doing so the state surpassed its authority by depriving citizens of their rights granted by the Charter.

In this blogger’s opinion, the correct balance was indeed found between citizens protesting and state agents protecting the peace.

The correct question to ask, in the context of the G20 protest is: can peaceful protesters coexist in a mass protest that features violence?

In the normal legal context, it is the fundamental tenant of our criminal system that innocence is presumed, and the burden of proving guilt lies with the state to show beyond a reasonable doubt. However, is the context of the G20 summit a normal context?

This blogger would argue that the G20 summit is not a “normal circumstance,” and as such the state was within its authority to place in detention those suspected of breaching the peace. While this blogger does not wish to downplay the rights of Canadians to assemble, said rights must be exercised diligently and intelligently. Assembling in a protest that contains radical splinter groups inciting violence is unlikely to gain your agenda support amongst most Canadians. Rather, it’s far more likely to incur the justifiable diligence of the police.

Thus, while as a MARL member this blogger is sympathetic to protesters who have been victims of the abuse of due process, this blogger is not sympathetic to the means and location in which many of these protesters chose to make their grievances known. With rights come responsibilities, and one such responsibility is to exercise your rights intelligently in the proper context. Protesters need to be mindful of the company they keep.

MARL blogger