Timothy K Hamilton cc 2.0

Dear Reader,

If you missed out on our awesome launch this winter, now is the time to throw your hat in the ring. Kicking off our first proper year as UofT’s arbiters of cool, URBANE MAGAZINE is holding a writing contest for our exclusive late-summer issue. Only four entries will be accepted for inclusion.

A 300-800 word piece on any element of your summer experience may be submitted to info [at] urbanemagazine [dot] org. Writing that is intelligent, opinionated, and deeply interesting is good. Writing that is overly biographical  and stuffy is best left in the ‘Drafts’ folder. Urbane Magazine features fashion, design, culture and politics. Your entry should, in some degree, relate to one these topics but we’ll consider anything. Feel free to include pictures, music, etc. with your submission.

So, phone in sick to your summer job, launch the word processor and show us why we need you on our team. A year of culture and controversy is almost here, where will you be?

Questions and submission to info [at] urbanemagazine [dot] org.

Contest deadline: August 1st.

On the ground and in the media

Since its inception, the G20 has served as an impromptu soapbox for politically affiliated groups and discontents alike- a global stage upon which they might project their presence and ideology to citizens and world leaders alike. The 2010 G20, in this sense, differs very little from its previous incarnations. Peaceful protesting by various groups, with varying degrees of relevancy to the G20 itself, began earlier in the week, but the 25th of June through to the 27th served as the epicentre of protest activity. The 26th saw the vast majority of violence protest, alongside the emergence of a self-proclaimed group of anarchists employing black bloc tactics. The majority of sensible Torontonians retreated safely home, ensconced in the constant news updates provided by local stations that detailed flaming police cruisers, and black clad youth who, emboldened by the atmosphere of chaos, smashed store fronts and laid waste to any conspicuous capitalism. To viewers, these scenes may have echoed the historic “Battle of Seattle” in an ongoing “Battle of Toronto.” This was, of course, the sort of sensationalist overreaction that the violent anarchists sought, and the continued coverage only served to fuel the fire.

The largest protest gathering of the weekend coalesced on the 26th, with peaceful protestors, journalists, photographers and anarchists joining together to form a procession 10,000 people strong. Protestors walked with their unions, organizations, and fellow activists, with demonstration focusing upon the G20 itself, climate change and environmental issues, and seal hunting, among others. There was little, if any, violent demonstration and the atmosphere was one of camaraderie and resolve. The march reached its convergence point at Queen’s Park, where protestors set up camp. These events are an advantage given to us as citizens of democratic countries – peaceful protesting and bold activism. They highlight causes that may otherwise have little visibility among a sea of other issues. Recognition alone can be a small victory for many organizations.

(click images to enlarge)

However, following this, many activists continued their efforts in attempting to reach the summit security fence as one party. The majority were similarly peaceful, though their causes were more G8/G20-focused. Many desired only to bring attention to the supposed police state the G20 summit talks have turned Toronto into, one which the Canadian government has supported. Many outright desired an abolition of the G8/G20 and a tearing down of the security fence. Crowds gathered on the street, attempting to reach the security fence. Riot police did not allow for this to happen, most likely due to the violence that was still ongoing within the city. As many anarchists had changed out of their distinctive black clothing into civilian clothes, there was little telling who was peaceful and who supported black bloc tactics. Nonetheless, friends have told us that some protesters eventually did fulfil their goal once large groups disbanded into smaller ones, converging again at the fence.

In the following days: police brutality and other

On Monday morning, business owners were seen alongside municipal cleanup crews, scraping away remnants of broken glass; boarding up shop doors; and scrubbing graffiti off windows. A MAC Cosmetics employee, who declined to reveal his name, recalls that he was “pretty upset” watching the anarchists vandalize stores such as his from his home on Saturday afternoon. He felt that they “should have been more concerned about stopping vandalism and less concerned about blocking the fence,” and that destruction to property is not an inevitable consequence to the protection of the summit fence. Considering the, nearly, one billion dollar bill the city paid on security measures, property should have been more carefully protected. The employee feels the money was “not well allocated” considering the anarchists were still able to penetrate the windows of privately owned stores. “Even if there were no police, there is still a fence and the RCMP.”

Advocates of police conduct and tactics during the G20 have largely defended their laissez-faire approach to the property damage anarchists wrought on Yonge and other downtown streets, their main priority being perimeter security. Chief of Toronto Police Bill Blair explained their position by insisting that their actions helped save lives and prevented anyone from being killed.
Thankfully, there were no casualties left in the wake of the weekend’s civil unrest, but this was in no part due to the minimal police prescence.

The conduct of the police ground force has become a highly controversial topic, climaxing on Sunday June 27, when the majority of weekend arrests occurred. The controversy is even more so now that staff reporters of the Globe and Mail have just reported on June 29, within 24 hours of this writing, that Premier McGuinty and Chief of Toronto Police Bill Blair stated that the special search-and-arrest powers said to be vested in the police force were misinterpreted and did not actually exist. These powers pertained to a 5 metre area around the security fence to anybody who wandered too close. There have been much wider and more severe concerns about the mistreatment of protesters, bystanders, and media personnel at the hands of law enforcement during the detainment process – some instances many have accused of being illegal. Hundreds of stories have been published and shared throughout this post-G20 week highlighting the injuries, fear, and humiliation which many peaceful protesters, journalists, and photographers suffered at the hands of the riot police during their often unnecessary arrest.

On the morning of June 28, the Integrated Security Unit released a statement which reported that in a period of approximately two days, there were over 900 detainments made – many being released soon before their 24 hours had passed and thus, not being indicted of any criminal charges. Numbers of the protesters vary from 5,000 (The Boston Globe) to 30,000 (The National Post), with most sources settling on 10,000 protesters involved with the G20 at its peak on Saturday.

On the street, some protesters and onlookers expressed suspicion towards the police, particularly in their beliefs that attempting to incite riots was a major element of formal police tactics. There have been many comments upon the similarities between the G20 Toronto force with what is known as the “Miami Model” – first surfacing in the FTAA Miami protests of 2003. As we stood watching the first Queen Street West cruiser blaze, around us there was  a great number of talk about it being a “set-up” that the police had left it there on purpose, some going as far to say that the police set it ablaze themselves. Other accusations have gone as far as to say the anarchists are agents provacateurs, police in disguise. The police have stated that the officers abandoned the vehicles after having its windows smashed because had they attempted to drive off, they believe they would have injured the people who stood in the streets. Once its windows were smashed, the cruiser was guarded by dozens of riot police for nearly an hour before suddenly being abandoned.

This was the fate of the G20 – could it have truly been avoided? Not even $1 billion dollars of security costs could prevent the $750,000 damage to each of the 40 damaged properties. As history has shown us, summits such as these inevitably attract groups such as the self-proclaimed anarchist type, who run amok and wreak havoc and generally generate antipathy and political pointlessness. The federal government demanded for the summit to be held in Toronto and yet offered little to no compensation or assistance for businesses and the detained innocent – unwilling victims. As such, many have thus suggested that summits or controversial gatherings concerning globalization, with their due histories, should be moved away from downtown areas.

Is the solution as simple as that? Moving the summits away from a downtown area to avoid violence will undoubtedly and inadvertently also discourage assemblies for peaceful protesting. In situations like that, the G20 leaders might be given a free pass to adopting an out-of-sight, out-of-mind mentality concerning G20 protesting – although that seems to be the case already. At the end of the day, the fate of both the G20 and G8 escaped unscathed. The powerful world leaders continued their discussions, showing zero signs of discontinuing them for the future, at least not any due to protesting.

Additionally, the fiasco had cost the nation nearly $1 billion – a price tag PM Harper predictably justified through the actions of a single group, actions which the media did as much as it could to embellish. The peaceful march of many organizations displaying various causes, which occurred at 1pm, had taken a far back seat to mindless violence that could and should not be given any respect or afterthought except that it was an embarrassment to all parties related.

It has been nearly 11 years since the WTO Seattle protests of 1999 – an event which many scholars had hailed as one which, nearly single-handedly, brought to global attention the downfalls of globalization. Has protesting since then lost its lustre and pull? Are the only dangers which protesters attempt to bring to public attention are ones which they themselves pose? It is no fault of theirs, many and most of the activists are peaceful and more accepting than your average citizen. At the protests we heard many others within a crowd berate a young man for using an offensive term against homosexuals – a small gesture, but one that is not necessarily common. Times, however, are changing- apathetic governments, evolving police tactics, ignorant delinquents, and melodramatic media have all worked to taint the name of activism. Can ad hoc, grassroots movements still make waves on an international, global scale?

Conclusions of the actual summit

Informing the public of what transpired during the actual G20 talks was relatively slow within mainstream media (MSM) in comparison to their immediate coverage of burning car and police-protester clash footage. However, light should be shed on what resulted from the summit deliberations. Below is a basic summary of some major decisions made.

As the leaders focused on rebuilding a more stable international financial structure in the recovery stages of the 2008 crisis, the bank tax has been one of the leading points of focus, as Harper has had very strong views concerning it. Stephen Harper was able to wield considerable influence over the discussion on financial reform due to Canada’s relative triumph over the recent banking fiasco, particularly because of its ability to avoid major governmental bailouts. As Canadian banks continually outperform those of its American and European counterparts, Harper is increasingly able to exercise international pull over financial reform policies. He used his newly acquired leverage to oppose one of the hot items on the agenda: a bank tax as a means of avoiding future economic crises. The imposition of a bank tax is an issue on which Canada somewhat diverges from the majority of G20 countries. Although a bank tax is often seen as a life insurance policy against government bailouts, Harper argues that the burden of the tax would inevitably fall to the taxpayers rather than the banks. Further, taxing the banks would create a pool of capital to fall back on, encouraging more risky behaviour. With the credibility of the Canadian banking system increasing after its performance throughout the global economic crisis, Harper was successfully able to persuade the leaders to focus the group’s financial document on the build-up of capital instead of the bank tax in order to protect the banks from economic jolts.

Canada was also a leading figure within discussions concerning issues on deficit cuts. PM Harper stated that the G20 members should adopt more discipline strategies of fiscal constraint, presenting a goal for G20 members to have halved government deficits by 2013. It was one which British PM David Cameron deemed the most ambitious plan Britain has seen in decades, his views in line with the desires of PM Harper. Similarly, many of the European leaders are also keen on reducing national debt and developing a unified strategy for proceeding with the restructuring of the global economic system. Similarly  Meanwhile US President Barack Obama, Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega, and the Japanese leaders present at the summit were more resistant to rapid deficit reduction, arguing that the proposed targets are unreasonable for some countries. Rather, these leaders advocated a slower withdrawal of stimulus measures. These rifts between world leaders emerged early on in the meeting, with issues arising from the vastly differing levels and intensity of national debt each nation suffered. While European and American goals of reducing national deficits, increasing economic growth and avoiding a part II to the global recession are aligned, their methods of achieving such outcomes differ considerably.

The main questions over which leaders hold opposing views are: how much stimulus is desirable or even necessary to catalyze global economic recovery and how quickly is the world ready to cut deficits. President Obama had a difficult time selling a continued economic stimulus plan to Britain and Canada. The challenge at the summit was coordinating and integrating the strategies proposed by different countries. Not all countries are recovering from the recession at the same speed, and the differences must be accounted for if international agreements are to be reached and a unitary economic strategy is to be devised. Unfortunately, opposing views on how quickly action be taken plagued the outcome of the summit, and ultimately prevented the emergence of a coordinated strategy among the nations.

Contrarily, while divisions were rife on the issue of deficit reduction, the leaders unanimously called for the increasing liberalization of international trade and the reduction of protectionist measures such as tariffs and government subsidies on domestic products. The promotion of free trade was praised as key to a healthy economic recovery and a stable financial system, as it often has been in past international gatherings such as this. The leaders emphasized the need for increased foreign direct investment in tandem with the elevation of corporate responsibility toward developing economies, including the passage of labour laws and environmental protection legislation. However, recent summits have proven that, although the promotion of free trade among nations is often prevalent, its implementation is not always as effective as the leaders intend for it to be. Only time will tell if this rhetoric can be translated into action.

Finally, the G20 leaders committed themselves to strengthening and reforming international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and various other multilateral development banks. Structural reform, it is believed, will enhance the ability of the institutions to govern effectively and increase their international legitimacy, particularly among developing countries. Efforts will be made to include developing economies in the formulation of policies and programs that affect them directly. G20 leaders plan to increase funding, establish more legitimacy, and broaden membership. The effectiveness of all these blueprints and expectations for a growing economic recovery are pending.

Illustration by Rachel Levit

Karen Elson, Vogue queen and Chanel gazelle, played with her new band last Wednesday night at El Mocambo. That bird-like face, and traffic-light red hair graced the webpages and concert listings for a while so I knew she was coming for weeks. I’ve heard and enjoyed her music, and Mocambo is on my daily path–I might have passed it running errands three times that day alone.

My mind didn’t buy tickets, plan a review, nor make any attempt to go. While many might have simple reasons to avoid a model-turned-Indie crooner’s show—singing model, need I say more?—my story is surprisingly complex.

Illustration by Rachel Levit

I was a hopelessly shy teenager, especially because I didn’t speak the language of my middle-school classmates. My first memory is trying to ask a girl in my class how to say “Do you have a pencil?” and instead unwittingly asking boys for tampons. I talked less and dressed more, and the result was outlandish. It wasn’t always conscious, I identified as the school’s primary Goth girl, but looking back at the (thankfully few) pictures there was beige knitwear on top of bright pink cargo pants on top of printed rubber Wellies. Plaid on silks on a particularly memorable pink lace tutu. Sequins galore, a few feather phases, and a long cocktail dresses-over blue jeans epoch. The only constant was the raccoon eye make-up (I was in ecstasy when my first passport finally expired last year.)

Peacock-style, I attracted a flock of odd birds, who soon became my closest friends. I don’t think I said two words in high school to anyone else, but never felt at odds with them. In the understanding words of my best friend “They only like you because of how you dress. If they heard what you had to say, they wouldn’t like you.” Instead of construing an insult I adapted this as a social modus operandi. Then along came Jack White, then-White Stripes front man, clad in white and red and never without his silent “sister” Meg.
Jack White stole my heart at fourteen. He had no swagger, was podgy and unbecoming. He smiled in photos. He adored the shy and the weird girls, the ones who have nothing to say and you’re always wondering what they’re thinking.  You ask them questions while they conceal their thoughts which are both callous and wicked. In my eyes, it was an unprecedented celebration of the shy girl.

Then one day my friend told me my Jacky had married an (ugh) fashion model. She probably doesn’t even have the requisite red hair, I thought. Like meeting any ex-boyfriend’s new girlfriend I was jittery and jealous as she brought me up to the huge billboard of the Jean-Paul Gaultier fragrance and pointed to the exalted pale crimson-haired goddess with her milky neck like a crane’s. Scowling at Karen Elson became an approved lunchtime activity.

I love Jack White for all the same reasons I love fashion. He celebrates the weird ones, the ones who don’t talk, dress strangely and think even more strangely. He knows the female language is most indecipherable in the species of “shy.” Fashion knows it too, in a perverted way. It’s about turning the silence inside out.  Elson fits the introvert bill, and she got my man and my fashion in spades. That’s alright, I didn’t go to her show. (And, in the end, she probably won’t read my article.)

Tell us what you think!