Diffusing a Tense Situation

Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair took an interesting tack last week in response to Tamil Canadian protestors seeking to draw attention to the plight of their friends and family as the government of Sri Lanka attempts to “finish off” the remaining resistance of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The lawful but protracted demonstrations, lasting several days, took place on University Avenue, a principal throughway in downtown Toronto. This effectively blocked off traffic and caused some degree of inconvenience to commuters and residents in the vicinity. Although the police walked the remaining protestors onto the sidewalk by Thursday morning, thus opening the street to traffic once again, many complained that the police should have cleared the streets of the protestors much sooner and blamed Blair for not having done so.

Notwithstanding his critics, Blair’s approach was arguably the correct one from two perspectives. First, it is refreshing to see law enforcement officials show a healthy respect for protected rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The demonstrators, by engaging in mostly peaceful protest† were exercising their lawful right to freedom of expression under the Charter. Freedom of expression (subject perhaps to reasonable time and place restrictions) does not mandate that lawful expression always be convenient to the surrounding public.‡ The purpose of demonstrations and protests is to draw attention to a cause, a purpose that would be defeated if demonstrators were relegated to spaces where no one would see them. In this case, the University Avenue protests were seeking to attract the attention of the United States consulate in an effort to urge the United States government to intervene or pressure the Sri Lankan government to desist from its operations.

Second, by allowing the demonstrations to run their natural course and peter out, Blair avoided heightening a situation rife with conflict which would not likely have been the case had he called out the riot squad. Such increased conflict would have been foreseeable given that the protests were otherwise peaceful and clearing them or using aggressive tactics would have been unwarranted. Furthermore, it may have led to greater resentment (from a section of the populace already raw with concern over family and friends in Sri Lanka), not to mention perhaps further protests directed at the city. Lastly, it is possibly when (amongst other circumstances) government engages in disproportionately aggressive conduct to quell lawful demonstration addressing a legitimate international concern that resistance mounts and perhaps become justified.

† There was reporting that some 15 arrests took place arising from a scuffle that transpired around rush hour on Wednesday.

‡ Of course, while it is important to draw the public’s attention to the substance of their protests, demonstrators may of course run the risk of testing the outer limits of the wider public’s patience and consequently lose sympathy for their cause. The length of any protest ought to be calibrated with the underlying wrong that is being protested.

Sources consulted:

Robyn Doolittle, “Tough cop versus peace officer” The Toronto Star, May 2, 2009, online: http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/627918