A former police official commented at some length in the paper today about G20 policing, claiming that it was effective because everything “behind the fence” went without a hitch.
If there had been no policing at all, except at the fence perimiter, would we not be able to make the same statement?
Are we to accept that, because the behind-the-fence world was kept safe, that the public outcry about G20 arrests, with claims of assault, are to be overlooked?
Are we to accept that, because the behind-the-fence world was kept safe, that the failure of police to defend looted property is correct and proper? That the kettling of innocent demonstrators was brilliant citizen interaction?
Is history going to be rewritten? One of the lessons of history is, if you don’t learn from it, you are doomed to repeat it.
Do we want the G20 policing to be accepted as “normal” or successful?
That’s today’s dumb question.