Article content continued

Gurney: Likewise. That was the gem hidden amid the sarcasm. I think, as well, though, we might be seeing something of the argument we occasionally see on the federal level from the NDP or left-leaning Liberals, who understand that they need to pay lip-service to a large, well-equipped and properly trained Canadian Forces, but who will never ever be happy if it’s used for anything more than filling sandbags to save Winnipeg. There’s certainly an issue of over-militarization in the police force, and the concurrent potential for police officers to start to view everyone else — a.k.a. all of us — as The Enemy. But I haven’t heard anyone suggest yet that if the G20 protests hadn’t turned violent that the police would have launched a pre-emptive strike. There’s lots of of things the police did wrong during the G20, but that’s what happens when you set loose thousands of heavily armed, pumped up guys on a confusing crowd of people, some of whom are engaging in violence. If there’s a way around this that still lets us host big events, it’s stopping the violence in its tracks. I wish the police were able to do that, but it’s really going to have to be the protesters.

Goldsbie: Then I’m sad to break it to you that the sentiment in my first sentence was equally as sarcastic as those that followed it. This is at least the fifth time we’ve touched on the subject of the G20, and it’s rather counterintuitive that — in light of the various reports and revelations of the past two years — both of you seem to have gradually shifted responsibility for the mess from the police to the protestors. It is most certainly not the duty of members of the public to risk their own safety for the purpose of protecting property; in general circumstances, the police are pretty adamant that calling 911 is the only appropriate response and that to take matters into one’s own hands would most likely constitute vigilantism.