Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Does the G20 deficit agreement go far enough? | Main | Hot Day in the Imperial Capital »

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Meme that needs to be selected against: "Don't let the thugs determine where we host the G20!"

I'm beginning to hear a lot of people argue that we shouldn't allow the protestors, thugs, and sociopaths determine where or when we have events like the G20. Even Andrew Coyne -- the man I usually think of as rational in the economic sense -- is spreading this meme:


But this is irrational. The value of not allowing sociopaths to determine where we host these things is surely not worth $1 billion dollars plus property damage. If we could have hosted the G20 somewhere else, or kept the costs down in some other way, we should have. Hosting the G20 in Toronto, at such an enormous expense, is a mistake. There may be good reason to refuse to be rattled by goons and thugs, but whatever that reason is, it is surely dwarfed by the price.

Posted by P.M. Jaworski on June 27, 2010 in Canadian Politics, G20 | Permalink


If they had paid far less for a much smaller contingent with authorization to shoot to kill all violent protesters without mercy, P.M., would that be acceptable to you? It would to me.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-06-27 11:54:59 AM

Let me get this straight; we should give in to blackmail? While I am not a supporter of the G20 I am even less a supporter of allowing blatant criminal activity. Civil protests are one thing, but this was well organised criminal activity to which the state, once again, turned a blind eye. This has become common place in a land where one once expected to see the rule of law.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-06-27 1:33:44 PM

Isn't a definition of insanity performing the same action while expecting a different result?

Posted by: sam | 2010-06-27 3:08:15 PM

Yes, Sam, so that's why I suggested something different. The real troublemakers would mostly stay away if they knew they would probably be shot if they showed up.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-06-27 4:35:39 PM

The real troublemakers would mostly stay away if they knew they would probably be shot if they showed up.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-06-27 4:35:39 PM

That exceeds the power I feel the police should have in a democratic society. Live rounds in a crowded city by nervous cops would probably lead to some disasterous consequences.
I too would like to see these shit disturbers get some of their own medicine and would have no problem with the cops beating the snot out of them and then throwing them in the can for a year or so. They should also be made to repay any damage they were complicit in.

Posted by: peterj | 2010-06-27 11:02:58 PM

They already had the power, PeterJ. Those snipers sprinkled across the rooftops weren't issued with plastic bullets. Ditto for the rounds in every police officer's service pistol. The fact of the matter is these dirtbags will keep coming back and trashing our cities until we stop them. And, ironically, it would be easier to legally justify shooting them on the spot than to do any of the stuff you have suggested. Life's one long dark comedy, isn't it?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-06-28 6:20:49 AM

Not long ago in Iran the police shot a activist (Faseh Hashemi) and within hours, the picture of her dying on the sidewalk was front page in damned near every newspaper in the world. Every article I read was that the government shot her with no mention of the individual that pulled the trigger.
Can you imagine the headlines and pictures if the police shot a pile of unarmed shit disturbers in what could be considered a very minor riot ?. Bodies bleeding out all over the street would sink any government and this country would be vilified all over the world. If they were trying to get at the delegates through the perimeter fence I could see the use of lethal force as a last resort but that was not the case.

Posted by: peterj | 2010-06-28 11:54:20 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.