Flashpoints of Contention; Policing Public Order in Toronto a Comparative Case Study

Flashpoints of Contention; Policing Public Order in Toronto a Comparative Case Study
Name
Institution
Flashpoints of Contention; Policing Public Order in Toronto a Comparative Case Study
The issue of public policing has been met with some controversies in the recent past especially when dealing with public protests and demonstrations. Undoubtedly, the method employed in public policing of public order occurrences largely determines the outcomes of the situation. This fact is evident in the separate cases of the G-20 summit and the Tamil protests in Toronto. The former case took pace a week before the 2010 G20 Toronto summit and the main causes for the protests and demonstrations were poverty and capitalism. This began as peaceful demonstrations and rallies, which eventually turned to riots and vandalism following the use of black bloc tactics on the part of the protesters. The Tamil protests took place between 2008 and 2009 and the protesters in this case were concerned about the Sri Lankan Civil War and unanimously wanted a ceasefire to that war. This was because the Sri Lankan Tamil people were being targeted and killed in huge numbers in the war and therefore the Tamil population was protesting this fact. The protest was generally non-violent and included internet activism, hunger strikes, student protests and occupation. This paper therefore aims to apply the Flashpoints model to give a detailed explanation for the outcomes of the G-20 and Tamil protests that are rather contrasting. The paper suggests that the contrasting outcomes were due to differences in the structural, political/ideological, cultural, contextual, situational, and interactional contexts of the two public order occurrences in Toronto.
The flashpoints model identifies six levels to be used in explaining the outcomes of public protests and demonstration. The first level is structural and this refers to inequalities in terms of material things, inferior life chances, and political inaction patterns in society that all support collective grievances (King, & Waddington, 2005). In this case, members of the society often feel powerless due to several factors including repressive legislation or accountability structures used by the police and which are often disregard the idea of democracy. In other instances, the state may also alienate itself from the ideologies shared by members of a given group and this can cause conflicts. Structural level also refers to a situation whereby people have mutual feelings of moral responsibility towards important issues such as the environment or war. In these cases, conflicts can occur when the protesters feel that the police are repressing their efforts (Waddington, 2010). With this in mind, the elements of this level are evident in the G20 and Tamil protests. In the Tamil protests for instance, the Tamil diaspora people had the feeling of moral responsibility towards the war, which was going on in Sri Lanka and was leaving many Tamil people dead (Jeyapal, 2014). For this reason, they wanted the intervention of politicians to call for a ceasefire. The Tamil population in Sri Lanka was also deprived of their civil rights and the protest was therefore aimed to restoring these rights. In the G20 summit protests, the cause of the conflict was material inequalities whereby the people believed that the rich world leaders at the G20 summit disregarded the poor and alienated themselves from the ideologies of the common citizen. For example, the protesters were fighting for migrant rights, feminist issues, anti-poverty and against environmental destruction. Ideally, the message of the protests was therefore centered on these common grievances and concerns that the people believed the state was not addressing.
The political/ideological level deals with the reactions of ideological and political institutions towards the activities and demands that the protesting groups state. The institutions include senior police, the media and prominent politicians. The police at this level are more likely to treat problematic groups with great harshness. In the Tamil protests, it is noted that the process was carried out peacefully with no violence involved. The demonstrations took peaceful forms to ask for justice such as hunger strikes, student protests, non-violent protests and demonstration, human chain, occupation, sit-in and internet activism. Since the activities involved were entirely peaceful, the reaction from the police was a relatively good one. For instance, there were very few confrontations between the police and the protesters and the arrests made were also few. According to a CTV News report (2009), out of the thousands of people that were demonstrating, only less than 25 people were arrested. The media such as the Toronto Star, covered the demonstration in a favorable way while supporting the plight of the Tamils. However, a section of the public and the authorities were initially reluctant to be sympathetic about the demonstrations given the Tamils’ history with the authorities was full of negative confrontations (Satgunam, 2012). The group was also linked with terrorist activities and the fact that they had Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) flags led the public to question their protest. The G20 protests were different considering that the demonstrations were followed by massive negative reactions. Ideally, the demonstrators presented their grievances, which was done in a peaceful manner at first but later on, there was call for action as people were incited to confront the police. The fact that the police were already in place to provide security indicated the possibility of violence in the demonstrations. The protesters interpreted the extra surveillance as repression of their views and therefore a good number participated in a militant action against the police that involved rioting and vandalizing other people’s property. Inarguably, the police are required by law to take part in regulating and protecting social order and where required, they are to use legitimate force (Reiner, 1992). This explains why the police responded by shooting people with rubber bullets, pepper spraying them, beating others and making many arrests during the protests (Hussey & LeCLERC, 2011). The media reports and the mayor spoke against the violence used in the demonstrations and this shaped the overall response to the demands.
The two occurrences also compare on the cultural level of the foundations model. This level deals with material conditions, locations and experiences that people in a group have and that serve as a basis for the thoughts and ways of life that these people develop. People tend to define themselves and others based on these cultures and this determines their attitudes towards particular situations including the necessary action to be taken or if violence has to be used (King & Waddington, 2005). Considering this, two protests took place at the G20 summit in Toronto. On one side was the peaceful People First march while on the other was a violent riot and vandalism carried out by the Black Bloc who separated from the rest of the group to take part in militant protests (Hussey & LeCLERC, 2011). People from various institutions, genders and ages attended the meeting, which is a clear indication that different cultures were represented in the G20 protests. The presence of the Black Bloc however, oriented the protest in a particular manner that helped the police to construct their preparations in a way that was suited to the orientation. The Black Bloc also determined how the police would relate with the demonstrators considering that culturally, the Black Bloc are perceived as representing bad demonstrators who in most cases pose a threat to the police and the public. The police also have a political obligation of giving...