Campus under siege

“I won’t second-guess the university, but I don’t think it’s necessary to close the college. I believe the mounted police will be forming on Devonshire Place, so I’m not too concerned about anything happening here.” This is quite the comment, when you consider how many other groups seem convinced that it’s police presence that actually inspires violence. But it isn’t that Fraser hopes the protesters will be intimidated. Rather, he says, “if people want to protest they should be allowed to protest. But shouldn’t an official protester be irritated at being told where to go?” This view is echoed by Professor Luste, saying “who knows where the real protesters actually will be?” But if experience is any guide, once a protest site has been designated something, at least, will happen there. If only through sheer force of attraction, people will be drawn to wherever they imagine something is happening.

Leaving aside the circus-like atmosphere of both the G20 summit and its accompanying protests, it must be remembered that most participants are trying to achieve something meaningful from the experience. Expressions of hope regarding the possible outcomes of this event all echo similar themes. Dr. Misak says, “there are some rather serious problems facing the world at the moment. We hope that the G20 Summit goes some way to resolving some of them. We also hope that those groups and individuals who exercise their democratic right to protest are able to do so in a violence-free environment.” If Leslie Jermyn is less sure of the G20 itself, she has similar hopes for the protests. “I hope that people are able to express their views and voice their opinions meaningfully and that there is no provocation. A beautiful example of the potential of free speech and the right to assemble and demonstrate.”

In terms of worst case scenarios, concerns are again quite similar. Professor Luste worries “that some unintended accident or some serious harm will be done to students, faculty, or to the public.” The Provost’s Office is “concerned about any action that threatens the safety and security of our students, faculty and staff, or any action that results in damage to our campus.” And Jermyn again puts emphasis on her concern that violence may be provoked either by police or by other authorities, but adds that her fear someone may get hurt extends to “all people, including those in uniform.” It shouldn’t be so surprising that within the university everyone’s best and worst case outcomes look quite similar–there’s just very strong disagreement about how to best chart a path towards the favoured result.

One question that seems to have stumped everyone at the university is the same question currently vexing merchants and citizens of the city of Toronto. When the whole whirlwind is over, just who is going to pick up the tab? Even in the best case scenario it seems unlikely that the university will escape without at least some damage and a big clean up bill. John Fraser’s irascible reply is likely the most honest. “I can’t answer that; I find no one wants to take any responsibility.” Likely the university will be left bearing a significant portion of the costs. But perhaps when the G20 is over the various constituencies around the university will remember they have this much in common, and do not wish to see students and the institution made poorer by the event. There could be worse outcomes than a united front on at least this one issue.

Toronto and Canada will be judged by how we handled the G20 and so far our score isn’t looking all that good. More than a few observers agree and sympathize with Professor Luste’s suggestion that “we should put these guys on some island – let them talk to each other there.” But practically speaking world forums are going to occur year after year and someone, somewhere, is going to have to deal with them. If we can’t provide an example of how to do this well, perhaps we can at least learn positive lessons from our experiences.

“If we could do it again I’d want to see much more consultation,” suggests Leslie. She believes the suddenness of decision making, and the lack of communication, has contributed to an atmosphere of tension and confrontation that may become self-fulfilling. “People are afraid, and frankly this is our city. We’ve done wrongly if, in hosting an international event, we end up creating fear in our citizens.” And that is one message that’s very hard to disagree with.