Anti-summit vandals rampage in Toronto

Disgusting. These people are not prostesters, they are thugs. Plain and simple.

The security costs are estimated at more than $900 million.

Holy crap! Money well spent I see.

It's like a fortress in Toronto right now. Crazy stuff going on. Still, I wonder if it wasn't a chicken and egg question. The police have been making their presence known for well over a week. They have looked like they were ready to stomp on some skulls. I am glad that more than four cop cars have been set ablaze. It seems to justify the ridiculous security price tag. But what I love the most is that the police chief is just astounded at the level of criminality in the streets. Really? You spent $1.1 billion and you are surprised? Hmmmmm. What was the government thinking having it in TO?

Quote: Ontario’s provincial government quietly passed a regulation earlier this month allowing police to arrest anyone who refuses to show identification or submit to searches if they come within five meters (five yards) of the security fence.

There should be a 500 dollar on-the-spot fine for anyone wearing a balaclava or similar recognition-avoidance face/head disguise.

Why do we keep holding these things in big cities? The local populations don't want them, the security is expensive, traffic gets all kinds of messed up, and there's always some group of morons running around breaking things.

@MeanRingo and @TheQuestion I have always thought that too. Seems crazy not to have it in some remote Pacific Island and announce the venue the day before

Actually, it is a pretty old law, from 1939, the Public Works Protection Act they are using. They've designed the whole area to fit that law. You can get arrested for refusing to show ID. Nobody knew about it because it wasn't publicized until this guy got arrested for refusing to show... He wasn't even protesting.

Here is some more info on how the police arrests people. All done with a smile! This is one of the arrests;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&feature=channel&v=rq9ruy4WeKM

Seems crazy not to have it in some remote Pacific Island and announce the venue the day before

Well you still want media coverage and people should still be able to protest for whatever crazy reason they feel merits it. In a best case situation the G-8 would be held in a secure, remote, location that the media and crazy protestors can reach using reasonable means with limited entry points, a private landing pad for leaders to come and go discreetly, and a reasonably sized security force trained in crowd control and riot suppression. That way leaders can talk in a safe environment, media can broadcast, protestors can make fools out of themselves to their hearts content, security can do its job, and nobody has to worry about their car, home, or business getting burned down, smashed up, or otherwise damaged.

There should be a 500 dollar on-the-spot fine for anyone wearing a balaclava or similar recognition-avoidance face/head disguise.

Such a softy. That's why these vandals keep showing up. In Argentina, 1977, this mockery of order would happen once and only once. Then all these bastards would be sent for a one way ticket airplane ride over the Atlantic.

Why did these people even bother-- not as if G8 will announce anything newfangled!?

HumbledCat: These people are not prostesters, they are thugs. Plain and simple.

Hear hear, very well said!

Hey Australia, what are you talking about the G8 never announces anything? Just the other day they ended their multi-billion dollar affair in Huntsville by condemning Iran and the Norks. That is progress my friend.

And all those folks wishing to toss the protesters out the door of a plane, would you wish the same on the Rosa Parks of earlier days? You have to take the good with the bad when it comes to free speech. I certainly don't think you should get a fine for wearing a bloody winter hat. It's Canada for god's sake.

MeanRingo,

" . . . would you wish the same on the Rosa Parks of earlier days? You have to take the good with the bad when it comes to free speech.

Rosa Parks refusing to change seats on a bus in defiance of racial discrimination is a FAAAAAAR cry from what these juvenile asshats tearing up Toronto are doing.

No, you don't "have to take the good with the bad," when the bad involves wanton destruction for the sake of wanton destruction. Protesting against the economic policies of world governments by trashing local businesses and looting shops?

Please. No one is so naive as to believe this is any sort of exercise of "free speech."

A short stint in jail, followed up with the repair bill for the damages seems just about right for these idiots.

MeanRingo; "I certainly don't think you should get a fine for wearing a bloody winter hat. It's Canada for god's sake."

You show your ignorance of everything with that statement first it summer second just so you know Canada has some very hot summers and it was in the mid 20's C yesterday!

So anyone wearing a ski mask is most definitely up to no good!

I am not a supporter of guns but I do think the USA has one thing right, during the 2009 summit in the USA it only cost 18 million for everything and one reason is that most of these so-called protester that are part of the black block Anarchist knew that the businesses had hired professional security guards and that USA laws permit them to carry arms and shoot anyone causing or trying to cause damage or harm to any person or private property they have been hired to protect.

So when these Anarchist stated attacking the bank in Toronto as seen on the news if that had been any USA city, the bank guards would have been in the right to shoot them!

I think one or two of these trouble maker being shout would be a good thing that way they will maybe think twice about infiltrating the legitimate protester who are on the whole peaceful.

And all those folks wishing to toss the protesters out the door of a plane, would you wish the same on the Rosa Parks of earlier days? You have to take the good with the bad when it comes to free speech.

Good good, even I can think of a more intelligent come back--like what's the big deal, they're insured anyway.

Please. No one is so naive as to believe this is any sort of exercise of "free speech."

It's a Ms. Sth Carolina answer on 'free speech'.... It's meant to daze and for you to say afterwards 'what a daft!'

Yes a short stint in jail and repair bills are what these asshats need =/

I am not a supporter of guns but I do think the USA has one thing right, during the 2009 summit in the USA it only cost 18 million for everything and one reason is that most of these so-called protester that are part of the black block Anarchist knew that the businesses had hired professional security guards and that USA laws permit them to carry arms and shoot anyone causing or trying to cause damage or harm to any person or private property they have been hired to protect.

Amen to simplified trespassing rules! One of the reason they had to close the entire CBD during the Apec Summit here in Aust'l was because of these anarchist groups-- especially coming from overseas. Unfortunately, the security was all worked up for nothing.

Certainly interesting being here.

I should note though that with 14,000 cops deployed, that letting their cars burn to the ground was a cheap PR sympathy manipulation. All those cops and not a single fire extinguisher? Please

Most of it has been peaceful, just those using black bloc tactics are bent on beating up on Starbucks. Must be disgruntled employees or something.

We're officially a police state until Monday, when the jived Public Works loophole law expires. The police had plenty of powers and laws to handle this and didn't need to trounce common law. Given they did nothing even for their own cars it would have been better for them and the provincial government had they not got this secret law through to begin with. Then they wouldn't have to allow their cars to burn to get sympathy and counter PR.

The claim on the Public Works law is actually proof that democracy is failed whenever it suitable and there is a public outcry about it. Even Trudeau back in the day of the War Measures Act had a Parliamentary vote on the matter. This law will most likely to be overturned in court but of course the G20 will be long over by then. It will have served its purpose, but at the cost of credibility to both the police and to McGinty's provincial government.

That was totally unnecessary

sf2k - Certainly interesting being here.

I should note though that with 14,000 cops deployed, that letting their cars burn to the ground was a cheap PR sympathy manipulation. All those cops and not a single fire extinguisher? Please

Hahahaha, That's funny. You're claiming that the mounties would let their cars burn to the ground as a PR stunt. Hehehehe. Seriously, why would they bring in fire fighting equipment to an area under assult by lunatics and terrorists? Do you think the "black bloc" and other groups needed MORE targets for their violence?

What exactly are they protesting?

What exactly are they protesting?

Anything that will give them an excuse to smash and burn stuff.

Thugs. No care about issues, nothing better to do. Arrest them, fine them and ban them from travel. If from other countries - which I suspect many are, a ban on entry to Canada and any other country that is to have such a summit. If England can do it with "Hooligans" why not with these scum??

To the million dollar question (quite literally, since that's pretty close to what the estimated damages have rung up to so far):

What exactly are they protesting?

The perfect answer:

Anything that will give them an excuse to smash and burn stuff.

These "protestors" are morons.

It seems that Canadians are finally realizing that they are slaves to these financial terrorists.