Recently in CBC Category

 Two days after the G20 disturbances in Toronto, it is clear, just from the statements made by police (not demonstrators nor lawyers nor journalists) that there was a massive failure of intelligence by the Integrated Security Unit.

That failure of intelligence lead to unjustified mass arrests, imprisonment, and according to a growing number of reports, police beatings of  detainees.


In a clip played on CBC News on Monday,  Sgt. Tim Burrows, one of  the spokespeople for the Toronto Police Service, said (somewhat passionately in my view) that simple possession of a bandana soaked in vinegar  to protect the user from tear gas was evidence of criminal intent and justification for detention and possible criminal charges.

If that was what Toronto Police intelligence indicated, that is the first evidence of that intelligence failure.

In today's news conference, Chief Bill Blair said the police intelligence units were monitoring social media. But if the police weren't monitoring the correct social media,  by concentrating solely on the radical element, rather than the wider world of  blogs, Facebook postings and Tweets, then that is more evidence of the intelligence failure.

In this morning's show and tell at police headquarters, there was a collection of items seized from those who were arrested.   Some of those items were "street" weapons. But as the media at the news conference pointed out to Blair two items, a crossbow and a chainsaw had nothing to do with G20 but to a man arrested by police and now undergoing a psychiatric assessment. So now one must  question if  some of  the protective gear, like helmets, are similar red herrings. Did that gear belong to members of the radical, anarchist Black Bloc, or to people simply trying to protect themselves? And since the police keep using the term ''street weapons," were they seized from radical thugs or every day street thugs taking advantage of the chaos?

What the Toronto Police Service in their assumption that protective gear is evidence of the "criminals" that Chief Blair keeps talking about has done, is to show that that police intelligence don't know how to use Google properly.

That fact is that use of protective gear and protective tactics for use in demonstrations during the G20 was widely discussed in social media, on blogs and elsewhere for weeks prior to the G20 meetings. Information on how to protect yourself even appeared in the main stream media, in Kathy English's Saturday morning column in the Toronto Star.

Coverage of G20 poses unique challenge for journalists


That means anyone planning to attend Saturday's demonstrations would have a basic idea on how to protect themselves by reading the Star over breakfast, even if they hadn't gone online.

If they had gone online, they would have come across easily accessible sites such as

Protestor First Aid

part of the more general Protestor's Web Guide (on a Manitoba Telephone System customer site)

The Demo Preparation Guide from the Black Cross Collective

One page  relates that the

The well-dressed protester wears

• comfortable, protective shoes that you can run in
• clothing covering all your skin to protect from sun and pepper spray exposure.
•  shatter-resistant eye protection (i.e. sunglasses, swim goggles, or gas mask)
• bandana to cover nose and mouth soaked in water or vinegar, it can aid in breathing during chemical exposure
• weather-related gear (i.e. rain gear, sun hat, winter clothing)
• heavy-duty gloves if you plan to handle hot tear gas canisters
• fresh clothes in plastic bag (in case yours get contaminated by chemical weapons)
• a cap or a hat to protect you from the sun and from chemical weapons

Google "protection from  tear gas",  625 results come up.

The first one (and therefore most significant to Google's algorithms) is an archived e-mail  giving hints on protecting oneself from teargas, based on the experience  of  taking part in the anti-globalization riots in Seattle in 1999.

including:

(3) Least expensive - bandana, goggles, hat, lemon juice/cider vinegar,

      An inexpensive but much less effective barrier against
inhaled tear gas can be made by soaking bandanas in lemon juice or
(better) organic cider vinegar.  The acidic fluid helps to act as a barrier against tear gas - but this barrier can be rapidly saturated and become ineffective.  Commercial vinegar (especially the clear vinegar) is often made with acetic acid - this smells bad and can irritate skin and mucous membranes.  Some folks will have allergic reactions to acetic acid.

.
It appears, at least from their public statements, that the Toronto Police Service believes that to protect yourself from tear gas, it is still  the 1960s where you go into the basement of a radical bookstore (of course there are no longer any independent bookstores) and pick up a mimeographed manual. And, of course, only radicals would do that
.
The question to ask is if the standard legal ''reasonable man" was going to take part in the peaceful anti-globalization anti-G20 demonstrations, would they not go online to find out how to protect themselves?

So if one piece of  intelligence was faulty,  what other intelligence was faulty?

If faulty intelligence was passed on to the street level incident commanders and police officers, if they were told to consider anyone wearing protective gear a "criminal" as it appears Blair and Burrows have said, then those officers would have done their duty and treated those people as criminals. That goes a long way to explain what happened.
Likely the problem was compounded by all those out -of-town cops who had no personal knowledge of Toronto.  There are reports that police officers from Edmonton were telling the media not to take photographs.  Also those out-of-town cops have no roots in Toronto, and Chief Blair said this morning that he has no power to discipline officers from other departments.  In other words, there could have been a breakdown of command, control and discipline among cops who are now back on their own streets.

 If there is public inquiry into what happened on the streets of Toronto on the weekend (and I doubt there will be an inquiry with both the federal and provincial governments with so much to hide) it will be important that the street level cops who acted on that bad intelligence not be singled out solely for blame. Those officers should be disciplined for any abuse that they did, even if based on faulty intelligence, because the principle of ''I just obeying orders" is no excuse is well established in law.

But if other inquiries on other events in Canada, the UK and the US are any indication no senior heads will roll.

Here in Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has twice prorogued parliament to avoid  political challenges, first the threat of a coalition of the three opposition parties and second a rather unsuccessful attempt to avoid nasty questions about the treatment of Afghan detainees.

When Harper porogued  parliament, all the government bills on the order paper died and had to be reintroduced in the new session of Parliament. In Canadian democracy, federal or provincial, the same thing happens when the prime minister (or premier) goes to the governor general (or lieutenant governor) to "drop the writ" and call an election.

The outrage among Canadians at Harper's tactics was loud and clear and many, even some Conservative supporters, consider the second proroguation an affront to democracy.

But there's a silver lining to all that...... in our nuanced world, nothing is ever black and white.

If a government is facing the electorate,  the death of those bills is a key element in democracy, any bills should be stopped until a new parliament can consider them.

Not apparently at the Mother of Parliaments, at Westminster, where there is what my friends in the UK call the "mash-up." The actual  political term is apparently "wash-up." That means after the election is called, the not-so-honourable members get to push through bills at the last minute. "Mash-up" is certainly a more appropriate term.

Based on my Canadian experience, I was rather surprised at the blogs, tweets and Facebook entries from the United Kingdom that said the controversial digital economy bill was still alive and to be voted on in Parliament, even after Prime Minister Gordon Brown visited the Queen to ask for the disolution of Parliament for an election.

In the wee small hours, Friday, Apr. 9, 2010, with only a few members in the  House, the highly controversial Digital Economy  as reported by The Guardian: Digital economy bill rushed through wash-up in late night session

The government forced through the controversial digital economy bill with the aid of the Conservative party last night, attaining a crucial third reading - which means it will get royal assent and become law - after just two hours of debate in the Commons.

The bill claims to promote the "digital economy" by what some say are draconian copyright provisions. As a creator and writer, I am very much in favour of copyright and copyright enforcement. This UK law (or will be law as soon as the Queen signs it) is largely the creature of the giant media companies and follows their agenda. There are even fears that the bill could lead the UK to block Google and sites like Wikileaks..

So the law is not a step forward to protect creators but a step by the media corporations to protect their empires. The only outcome will be more income from media lawyers, bureaucrats and whatever copyright police come into existence, rather than a real attempt to create a 21st century copyright framework.

Also according to The Guardian, the outraged digital community in the UK are now going take a very active part in the coming election and lists of MPs who voted for the bill, voted against the bill and just didn't show up are already available on blogs. See the Guardian's: General election 2010 Digital economy bill backlash dominates e-election debate

I wasn't assigned to cover the Olympic torch relay on the evening of Thursday Dec. 17, 2009, but ran right into it as I was heading from work to work out at the downtown YMCA.

I got to College subway station and saw the crowd waiting for the torch. 
As I was preparing to make my way through the crowd to the Y, I heard yelling. Then I saw that a group of demonstrators had rushed onto Yonge Street south of College yelling slogans like "No Olympics on stolen native land"  and waving signs.

I didn't have my main photo gear but  had the trusty small camera I always carry in a fanny pack, the Panasonic FZ28.

With the FZ28, as I have in the past, I pushed the Panasonic Lumix to its limit to shoot the demonstration using available light.  ISO 1600, EV +1.5, shutter priority at 1/40 and 1/50 of a second.

The crowd then congregated at Yonge and College Streets.



Demonstrators opposing the Olympic torch relay gather at Yonge and College streets in Toronto on Thursday night.  (Robin Rowland/CBC)

As the demonstrators moved up Yonge Street, I called the CBC news desk to tell them what was going on. 

Brett Gundlock of The National Post grabbed shot of a demonstrator as I passed by talking on my cell phone to the CBC Live Desk.



Toronto police at first tried and failed to stop the demonstration at Yonge and Grovesnor Streets when the protesters ran into the first two police cruisers escorting the torch parade.  (Robin Rowland/CBC)

Further up Yonge Street, a cordon of police officers with bicycles stopped the protest a block south of Wellesley Street.

With the continuing debate in Ottawa over what both the current Conservative and the previous Liberal government knew about the torture in Aghan prisons,  especially of prisoners handed over by the Canadians to the Afghans, my contribution to CBC.ca today is a summary of what both international and Canadian law requires.  Once the information about alleged torture is known or even suspected, the officials who have been told are obliged to carry out a thorough investigation.

See

Knowing about war crimes.