This is the line score from the G20 Summit protests.

Civilians arrested whose cases are still before the courts: 99.

Cops docked just one day’s pay for removing their name tags and badge numbers: 91.

Police officers finally identified — though not to the public — for overzealous and potentially criminal use of force against protesters at Queen’s Park: 14.

Cops visually recognizable in video and still photographs obtained by the Star: 3.

Subject officers who have refused to be interviewed by the Special Investigations Unit: 2.

Beleaguered police chief: 1.

Officers charged: 0.

It is not a record that should make the Toronto Police Services proud. And neither does the SIU have much to boast about, since they’d been unable — until a huge assist from media and the public — to corroborate allegations of police abuse, despite thousands of witnesses at the scene.

Just how much evidence do they need? Over the years, I’ve seen countless people charged under the Criminal Code come through the courts on a whole lot less supporting evidence.

But that’s the crucial difference, isn’t it?

When cops lay the charges, the discretion is initially left to them, and later with Crown attorneys who decide on whether to pursue a prosecution.

When police officers are targets of the law, however, the system turns itself inside out to protect identities and resist disclosure of names. Even obtaining information on Police Act proceedings is a reverse-onus labour for reporters trying to track events.

Any incident involving those sworn to protect the law, to protect us, should be more transparent, not less. That’s what builds trust.

The ghastly scenes of cops tackling peaceful demonstrators on the Legislature grounds on June 26 do not foster confidence. That melee — batons battering, feet stomping, civilians curled up on the ground in the fetal position — was obviously the crescendo note of a lurid police action opera. Yet the cacophony of the G20 fiasco continues to reverberate these past six months.

There is still no clarity. There is still no accountability — from the feds, who expanded the original G8 confab to a G20 crush in an urban setting with precious little time to prepare for security, to the provincial government that secretly passed a ruinously overreaching regulation giving police likely illegal exceptional powers to arbitrarily stop and search civilians, to the Toronto police force that had sole responsibility for the summit’s “interdiction zone,” extending outward from the interior security fence to an exterior security fence and the entire surrounding area.

Public knowledge of Regulation 233/10 emerged only after York University master’s student Dave Vasey was arrested on June 24 for failing to show police identification. Vasey, like so many others, had been merely following the advice given out in advance by civil liberties and advocacy groups, who’d provided on primer for protesters on the common law.

On June 26, as undoubtedly planned, “Black Bloc” militants broke away from a massive labour rally that had drawn upwards of 30,000 participants downtown. The scoundrels erupted in a 90-minute crime spree, looting businesses, smashing store windows and torching police cars.

It would have behooved police to confront the hotheads. They didn’t. As Ontario Ombudsman André Marin notes in a report released this week: “The police did not engage the group at this point, later explaining that they chose to focus their efforts on public safety, as opposed to containing damage.”

That may have been the wiser and prudent decision. But where, then, was the same concern when, hours later, cops moved en masse against the crowd on the north law of Queen’s Park, a designated protest area?

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

No prudence was displayed there. As the situation surged to critical, officials with the Integrated Security Unit Committee, at their HQ in Barrie, didn’t even know where the Toronto Police Service rep had gone. He’d apparently simply left the building, “completely off the ISU radar,” writes Marin. It took the ISU 45 minutes to even make contact by phone, by which point ISU was asked to take over security in the interdiction zone. More than 1,000 officers from the OPP, RCMP and Peel Region were deployed to police the security perimeter while Toronto cops focused on regaining control of the city.

Writes Marin: “We were advised that, in an unprecedented move, RCMP officers left the nation’s capital ‘bare’ as they trekked south to provide relief for Toronto.”

There were accounts of pepper spray and rubber bullets used.

Over that weekend, 1,105 people were arrested, the largest mass arrest in Canadian history, most under breach of the peace authority. Seven hundred would be released without charge; another 315 had their charges later stayed or dropped. Even Vasey, when he attended court, discovered there was no record of his charge under the confounded, controversial Public Works Protection Act, a police spokesman afterwards stating the documentation was “lost in the mail.”

From all that flexing of police might, under the disputed provisions of Regulation 233/10, only two individuals were ever actually charged. Some police defenders cite this as evidence that there was in fact no abuse of authority.

That is profoundly untrue. It’s not the number of charges that matter; it was the gross violation of civil liberties that allowed for maybe thousands to be detained, questioned and even searched. Two arrests proves the pointlessness of it all.

Marin released a statement Thursday night emphasizing the crux of the thing:

“Efforts have been made to downplay the questionable use of Regulation 233/10 . . . on the basis that only two persons were arrested under its authority. “It is important when considering this information to understand that while there may have been only two arrests . . . many people were detained, searched, questioned and redirected under its authority. That regulation played a huge role in the violations of civil liberties that occurred. Arrests are only a small part of it.’’

Further:

“What also has to be counted is the number of people stopped under its authority — so their identification could be produced or because they were wearing black clothing; the number of people questioned under its authority because they were walking in areas rightly or wrongly considered by officers to be protected by the law; the number of people searched under its authority — who open their purses or endure pat-downs; the number of people who have items seized from them under the authority of the statute; and the number of people who were intimidated from walking in public spaces because officers claim the authority to control their movements . . .

“Counting arrests is a glib sound-bite, not a serious response to the impact this legislation had on Ontario’s citizens.”

Rhetoric and disingenuous cop apologia, signifying nothing.

Rosie DiManno usually appears Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.