Like many articles of this sort I think a lot of crucial information is missing to make a fair desician and this was written to be somewhat slanted in an anti-police direction.
For starters I'd wonder what the heck this guy was doing anywhere near G20. This event was a long time in coming, and the riots and police prescence are pretty much expected. Given that he was apparently alone as opposed to with a group of LARPers, and so on, I'd immediatly wonder if there is a plausible deniability claim being made here. I mean we more or less have only his word for the fact that he wasn't carrying the machete, and that he wasn't planning on shooting flaming arrows at police.
Truthfully a lot of SCA and MWS guys I've known would have shown up for a riot wearing their armor, and to be honest a lot of those "padded" weapons hurt like heck. People break ribs and everything else. In fact a lot of guys in SCA will brag about how much damage they can do with one, and it's sort of a "sport" to make the things as hard hitting as possible while still getting them past inspection before use. I've handled a few of these things, and you can beat someone down with one.
Having seen arrows made for these events when they mention the socks and stuff on the ends, that gets my attention a bit because that's not how it's generally done. Typically such arrows are taped up pretty good and aren't going to be lightable, these seem like they were modified, and it makes me wonder if this guy was caught with lighter fluid or something.
What's more, I am not sure what Toranto, Canada's laws are in regards to such things, but a lot of stuff recreationists, LARP players, and medieval duellists do is inherantly illegal in the US, it's just nobody cares for the most part. Long standing renaissance faires that operate consistantly require liscences in a lot of cases. The point being that running around with a broadsword, even one with the edge machined off, can still count as a weapon, especially if the point is still capable of penetration. Also armor is a touchy subject state by state since there are various laws ranging from making it's sale illegal (but owning it is fine), to making both the sale and ownership illegal, or simply making it illegal to wear. This of course having to do with law enforcement and cops not always carrying around AP rounds as a matter of course, body armor giving criminals an edge especially in areas where the police might not have it as a matter of routine. I seem to remember years ago when that motocycle movie "Torque" came out, there was a series of robberies by people wearing heavy stunt bike gear (including back and breast plates designed to protect people if they go skidding accross pavement) some of this high end athletic equipment proving to be pretty resistant to small arms fire and causing calls to regulation (though I don't know how it went) "like other forms of body armor". The point being that while it's not universal in the US to my (admittedly limited) knowlege, and I have no idea about Toronto, there is a chance he was inherantly breaking the law just by wearing that armor, it's just nobody generally cares except in an emergency situation like that when they are trying to get every whack job off the streets they can because of well... riots.
Not saying the police aren't wrong, just saying there are a lot of questions that come up with this story. Personally, if I was police or some kind of security in a situation like that, I would have arrested him and/or seized his stuff too. The reason is simply that it has to do with *MY* safety when doing my job, and in a situation like this I'd rather be yelled at by somebody than risk getting hurt or killed. An anti-police attitude, and argueing about all kinds of detailed inspections and standards is easy when your not the one who has your rear on the line. Truthfully, you should be bloody grateful that you had police officers willing to control a situation like this. The job of a police officer is not safe, but even so it takes a certain kind of dedication to walk into somethng like this, there have been situations where when the going got tough the police decided to either not do their job or all call in sick or something.
-
That said I think the whole G20 situation is absolutly ridiculous. But then again I guess it's because I actually think that a single world goverment is a good thing, and a lot of the paranoia revolves around people believing that is what the G20 is trying to set up. Overall I think they and groups like the Blinderberger group, are not opposed to the idea, I don't think they set their agenda quite that high. In the end these meetings come down to an exchange of ideas between a lot of big countries that will hopefully lead to the formation of such a goverment as peaceful as possible down the road, although a lot of death and bloodshed is doubtlessly going to be nessicary no matter what happens.
In a more practical sense I think that 20 members is too many for this, I think G8 was a lot closer to the size it should be. I understand how a lot of countries don't like the idea of powerful nations making plans that are going to affect them (or forcibly police them) without any say in the matter, however at the same time once you put too many voices around the table things get tied up to the point where you can't accomplish anything coordinated... much like what happened with the UN.
I also feel that some of the nations that are part of the "G" (and have been even when it was smaller) like China represent an almost complete lack of credability, and should also reassure a lot of people that very little is going to be done. On paper the "G" exists to do things like try and ensure fair trade and business practices, and protect things like patents and copyrights that are crucial to many of the world's economies. While China might be a rich nation, being a "robber economy" it's arguably exactly the kind of nation that the "G" is supposed to be coordinating economic action against, rather than letting it have a say on policy. At least for the time being China should have been kicked until things have changed signifigantly... or at least I think so from my understanding of what this is supposed to be about.
Right now a lot of the tension seems to be based on the "one world" thing which strikes me as being silly (personally), and simply people baaawing because their nation doesn't get to be a member despite perhaps having a lot of money.
I suppose it's better than when they had like 33 nations/voices involved in this thing.
