Last things first: What is the purpose of G20 summits? To paraphrase someone in another thread, "Have they never heard of videoconferencing?" At the very least, why not meet at the same secure spot every year instead of inflicting huge security bills and social costs on various municipalities in turn? It's a public performance, but not everyone can on agree on what is being performed.
On the other point, I can't agree with you at all. For the vast majority of people who were on the streets, Toronto is their city. It didn't cease being their city just because some officials flew in for an ostentatious demonstration of their own importance. For many protesters, this was their only message: These are our streets, we won't be barred for them for the convenience of the few, and we don't give up our civil rights even for one day due to "security concerns". How anyone describing themselves as "libertarian" or "liberal" ("classical" or otherwise) could disagree with this message, I can't imagine.
Everyone knew the Black Bloc was going to stir up some shit during the summit; no one--least of all the police--knew where and when. As mentioned above, the authorities claimed in their public statements that they expected an assault nearer the conference site. Yonge Street was one of the venues for "legitimate protesters". You can argue that once they saw property damage was occurring, bystanders should've left immediately. But I would say they had a reasonable expectation that police would arrive soon to deal with the perps--just as they would have had on any ordinary day in the CBD. If you happen to be in a store where someone is shoplifting, do you cease to be an "innocent bystander" if you stick around to watch what happens? (After all, given the history of lossage at certain stores, you should know that shoplifting is going to occur again there sooner or later.) What if you're out and about on St Patrick's Day watching people get drunk and disorderly? What exactly makes those situations so very different from the one under consideration?
no subject
On the other point, I can't agree with you at all. For the vast majority of people who were on the streets, Toronto is their city. It didn't cease being their city just because some officials flew in for an ostentatious demonstration of their own importance. For many protesters, this was their only message: These are our streets, we won't be barred for them for the convenience of the few, and we don't give up our civil rights even for one day due to "security concerns". How anyone describing themselves as "libertarian" or "liberal" ("classical" or otherwise) could disagree with this message, I can't imagine.
Everyone knew the Black Bloc was going to stir up some shit during the summit; no one--least of all the police--knew where and when. As mentioned above, the authorities claimed in their public statements that they expected an assault nearer the conference site. Yonge Street was one of the venues for "legitimate protesters". You can argue that once they saw property damage was occurring, bystanders should've left immediately. But I would say they had a reasonable expectation that police would arrive soon to deal with the perps--just as they would have had on any ordinary day in the CBD. If you happen to be in a store where someone is shoplifting, do you cease to be an "innocent bystander" if you stick around to watch what happens? (After all, given the history of lossage at certain stores, you should know that shoplifting is going to occur again there sooner or later.) What if you're out and about on St Patrick's Day watching people get drunk and disorderly? What exactly makes those situations so very different from the one under consideration?