At least most of those that were there at the time are gone now.And a damning indictment against spineless local civic and police leadership.
At least most of those that were there at the time are gone now.And a damning indictment against spineless local civic and police leadership.
On a macro scale, I get the reason why police have opted for a light touch on public order incidents since the Toronto G7 fiasco. Having plain-clothes liaison officers trying to resolve issues with groups is probably better than sending in the mounted Cossacks swinging truncheons.More police than civic. Police operational decision makers are well shielded form civic political whims when it comes to specific operational decisions like how to respond to an individual protest. The entirety of Ottawa's civic government could have been screaming in the face of the chief of OPS and it would have been entirely the police service's call. My understanding from what I've heard is that part of the issue was that the municipal police chief was stepping too heavily on his operational commanders filling the role of the Critical Incident Commander. Even the chief of police generally isn't making operational calls; their job is to run the department. Ops get delegated.
I do believe that various groups are taking advantage of the 'light touch' that Canadian police generally take to public order events (at least outside of Quebec. They're just different there.)On a macro scale, I get the reason why police have opted for a light touch on public order incidents since the Toronto G7 fiasco. Having plain-clothes liaison officers trying to resolve issues with groups is probably better than sending in the mounted Cossacks swinging truncheons.
But I just can’t help but think that these groups are now taking advantage of the light touch and are now taking a mile when given an inch. We’ve seen it with the indigenous protests on the transportation system and vandalism of statues, the “freedom convoys” in Ottawa and the border, and now the Team Hamas protests.
I don’t know what the solution is, but the law has to be seen to be enforced, but people need to have their rights to protest protected. Other people’s rights need to be protected when the protesters infringe on them.
Protestors face off against the skaters at Nathan Philips Square.
Fair size turnout at Union Station.
I think something to do with freedom of movement would be worth looking at: interurban highways, border crossings, and other chokepoints should be protected.I do believe that various groups are taking advantage of the 'light touch' that Canadian police generally take to public order events (at least outside of Quebec. They're just different there.)
I don't know what the answer to that looks like. Public safety, officer safety, the safety of lawful protesters amid disruptive events all need to be taken into consideration. The law is clear about our constraints on using force, and generally speaking our law strongly supports the right to free expression, to the extent of tolerating a fair bit of disruption and inconvenience (but not violence). It's challenging to decide on overall strategic and narrower tactical approaches that are legally defensible, that are reasonably consistent, and that meet the expectation of the broader public (which is often fractured depending on the issue du jour). I'm just a dude who's out there on the front line sometime when called away form my regular duties. I don't envy the big picture decision makers.
People are free to support or not support whatever they like. But they should’t expect to be free of consequences when they wade in. Several businesses in Ottawa found that out the hard way.
These guys are about to as well…
![]()
UJA has filed a legal claim against two Toronto bus contractors for damages, and alleged human rights violations over refusal of service to Jews—but lawyers still haven't found the subcontractor identified as 'Prestige Worldwide'
The UJA Federation of Greater Toronto has filed a legal claim against the contractor and subcontractor who failed to deliver 17 of the 70 the buses hiredthecjn.ca
or perhaps buy one of those shield walls that the Paris police use very effectively. They close off a street wall to wall with interlocking shields and just start walking forwards until they have forced the protesters to move into the space where they want them and they can't interfere with bystanders or trafficThe more I see protests, of all types and spectrums, the more I lean towards the UK example.
Designated protest locations only available (city zoning issue) and legislation preventing blocking highways, national infrastructure etc.
As I understand it the protest locations are chosen to be visible, multiple entrances (no caging in), near public transportation, and have no vehicle access permitted.
Here's a link to the National legislation:
Just a friendly heads-up regarding Union Station today,
Should be pretty busy today with holiday travellers trying to return home for work and school tomorrow.
There is a law directly for it, Intimidation under the criminal code. It goes broader than just critical roadways and makes blocking any of them illegal. Just because the police refuse to use it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.I think something to do with freedom of movement would be worth looking at: interurban highways, border crossings, and other chokepoints should be protected.
To me it read more like they wanted to be sure a similar incident to what happened earlier in Washington didn't happen, rather than a threat.In one of the articles I read about this it said the organizers warned the bus company that failing to provide the buses would be considered antisemetic.
That mindset almost seems like a self-fulfilling axe to go around holding over peoples heads.
So they are protesting something they are calling genocide (which isn't genocide) by advocating for something that is essentially genocide?Protestors face off against the skaters at Nathan Philips Square.
Fair size turnout at Union Station.
On a macro scale, I get the reason why police have opted for a light touch on public order incidents since the Toronto G7 fiasco. Having plain-clothes liaison officers trying to resolve issues with groups is probably better than sending in the mounted Cossacks swinging truncheons.
But I just can’t help but think that these groups are now taking advantage of the light touch and are now taking a mile when given an inch. We’ve seen it with the indigenous protests on the transportation system and vandalism of statues, the “freedom convoys” in Ottawa and the border, and now the Team Hamas protests.
I don’t know what the solution is, but the law has to be seen to be enforced, but people need to have their rights to protest protected. Other people’s rights need to be protected when the protesters infringe on them.
It becomes a matter of 'when rights collide' Legislation has to be considered in light of court rulings around it. I'm not that familiar with a lot of it, but the SCOC has recognized that a disruption, delay, blockage of public space, etc. is inherent in labour protests and protected. I don't know if there are rulings that specifically carry that to non-labour actions, but it would seem reasonable that it would.There is a law directly for it, Intimidation under the criminal code. It goes broader than just critical roadways and makes blocking any of them illegal. Just because the police refuse to use it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.