John Graves Simcoe, this is all your fault

This week at city hall, Rob For- oh, to hell with it. Let’s talk about the weather.

Canadians are big on seasonal differentiation. A surprising amount of the world muddles through a nondescript cycle of vaguely-differentiated seasons, but not us. Toronto takes marking the seasons very seriously, in that Presbyterian way that holds that if a little misery isn’t involved, the lesson probably won’t stick.

I think about this a lot, whenever Toronto hits another climactic nadir, which it does every few months (miserable cold / miserable heat / miserable rain / cold miserable rain). The hint of masochism is strong. Why else would five million-odd people choose to live in such unwelcoming climes?

In a humid heat-wave like this, the city’s brick houses absorb heat until their hallways are warm to the touch, radiating inwards like so many pizza ovens. Cans of soup can be opened and discovered to be pre-heated. Cats lie sprawled outside on the pavement at night, long past the point of caring. If there was any substance to the theory of evolution, Torontonians would have gills by the end of the week. I could even deal with this, but in four months it’s going to be pitch black and pelting with freezing rain, yet unable to muster up a proper snowfall.

Here’s the question I always ask myself at times like this: Whose idea was it to put a city here? Sometimes the placement of cities is accidental, incremental, or lost to the shadows of time, growing from ancient sites or agrarian settlements, for whom nobody can properly be blamed.

Not Toronto. On days like today, let us remember that we’re under this weather because, long ago, a man planted his finger on a map and said, “here.” That was John Graves Simcoe. Today, it’s 38 degrees outside and 3,800 degrees inside and here we all are, stuck. It is John Graves Simcoe’s fault.

It’s true that the area had seen earlier settlements – a couple of First Nations villages up along the Humber, and an isolated and ultimately abandoned French trading post along the western lakeshore. But for the most part, Toronto was a straight-up forest before 1793.

Now, Toronto wasn’t Simcoe’s fault alone. The governor of Upper Canada, Sincoe felt that his existing capital, the border town of Niagara-on-the-Lake – called Newark at the time – was perilously to the United States, which had only recently come into being and was still kind of cooking.

His first choice for a new capital was a more defensible spot in the middle of the province, which he’d optimisically named “London,” but his boss in Kingston, Lord Dorchester, nixed the plan. So Simcoe picked out a spot on Lake Ontario that was sheltered by a yawning peninsula, offering a natural harbour and the perfect spot for a nude beach. The locals called it “Toronto.” He called it York.

Perhaps Simcoe didn’t honestly know what the weather was like here before he made his call. That’s alright; everyone makes mistakes. That’s no excuse for not fixing them. After spending a full year here, why didn’t he announce that the whole thing was a botch, pull up camp, and establish a capital somewhere else? There were plenty of places that were far from the American border. The interior of British Columbia is nice. So is Bermuda. Why aren’t we there?

Simcoe persisted. Upper Canada’s administrators and aristocrats had to be dragged from comfortable Newark, grumbling all the way, and installed in the muddy, boggy, stumpy settlement of York, which had literally just been hacked out of the woods.

As it turned out, Simcoe’s hunch about the border was right. When things with the Americans eventually got bad in the War of 1812, Newark got completely flattened. (If you go to Niagara today, you’ll see that much of the architecture is of an 1813 vintage.) The catch was, it didn’t stop the Americans from flattening York too. An army under the command of one General Zebulon Pike landed in the west end, overwhelmed the small local force and marched on Fort York. The British withdrew, setting fire to the powder magazine as they left. The enormous explosion that followed didn’t halt the Americans, but it did kill Pike, making him the first man named Zebulon to get blown up while attempting to invade Toronto.

At any rate, there is very little since then that cannot be blamed, for one reason or another, on John Graves Simcoe. The Christie Pits riots would not have happened if the Christie Pits had not existed. Hurricane Hazel could have been averted by not putting a city in the path of a hurricane. The waterfront would not have been such an imbroglio if it was still trees.

And the weather. Most of all, I blame John Graves Simcoe for the weather. This is why, on the hottest and coldest days of the year, I propose we acknowledge Simcoe’s contribution to our daily lives, by declaring it Fuck You, John Graves Simcoe Day. This is better than the existing Simcoe Day, which contains no obscenities and nobody really celebrates anyway. Let’s give it some meaning in our lives. In fact, let us name today the very first Fuck You, John Graves Simcoe Day.

As you swelter on the street or shiver by the air conditioning, reading news about a city whose chief problem seems to be with the fact that it exists when its leaders seem to rather wish it didn’t, take a moment to curse the man whose fault this all is in the first place. Damn you, John Graves Simcoe. It’s hot, and they’re talking about selling the zoo. This is all your fault.

 

This piece was originally published in the Toronto Standard.

Why Vancouver’s riots are not Toronto’s protests

A burning car makes great TV. This much we can all agree on. It doesn’t, however, turn Vancouver into Toronto.

Unfortunately, the visual parallels between the Vancouver riots and the G20 in Toronto – the broken glass, the smoking street, the smoldering police cars – are leading observers to make all kinds of spurious connections between the two events. The insinuation is that they represent two sides of the same coin, or two book-ends of trans-continental mob violence.

“Torontonians bashing Vancouver rioters? That’s rich. We had G20 last yr & would likely have riots if our team lost in Stanley Cup finals,” read one of many similarly-themed tweets coursing through the Internet.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The comparisons spring from visual comparisons, as well as persistent misunderstandings about what happened at the G20. The spate of vandalism that happened at the G20 was perpetrated by a small group over a short period of time. The rest was a rowdy, but relatively damage-free political protest that was the subject of an astounding police crackdown. The two events were different as apples and oranges.

This isn’t about Toronto vs. Vancouver. There could well be a drunken hockey mob in waiting here, too. By the same token, the G20 vandals, the G20 protestors, and the G20 police all came to Toronto from across the country. No, this is about two events that look similar on TV, but in reality have far less to do with each other than many seem to think.

Here’s why:

“It was just a handful of hooligans” is a myth in Vancouver, but a reality at the G20.

It’s always nice to blame an “outside” influence for this kind of thing. Today, Vancouver is in a tussle about whether or not there was “anarchist” involvement in the riots there.

Whether or not there were radicals in the mix in Vancouver – and surely there were – the critical distinction is that the crowd joined in, and hooliganism became a mob action.

At the G20, on the other hand, the violence was premeditated, targeted, and isolated. Moreover, the brief spate of property damage perpetrated by a few did not generate any interest in the thousands of protestors nearby.

Perhaps ironically, the bulk of the G20 protestors who were around at the time of the vandalism were far less interested in being drawn into a riot than hockey crowds were. For one thing, most were invested in the idea of peaceful protest. For another, they were sober.

There was almost no looting, and relatively little property damage at the G20.

TV images made the G20 property damage look widespread. In reality, the only major outbreak of property damage was by a group of “black bloc” vandals who waited until the end of the protest parade, and went on a quick parade of their own, breaking off in the opposite direction for a bit of infantile smash-and-run that followed a linear route.

They started near Queen and Spadina, moving east and dipping into the financial district, where a police car was torched (a disturbed, half-naked man, who I’d witnessed earlier in the day perched almost suicidally atop a war memorial, was charged), then headed north on Yonge to around College and west to Queen’s Park, where they changed clothes and dispersed. Along the way, they smashed windows of franchises that offended their sensibilities, and moved on. (The Toronto Star’s excellent report, written by reporters who followed the vandals, explains how they worked.)

I followed the vandals’ route myself, 15 minutes later. It was a mess, but there was no riot and no mob. Bystanders stood, a little dazed, some taking photos. There was no looting to be seen.

The police actions at the G20 had (sadly) little to do with the vandalism.

The G20 vandalism happened independently of the police actions that defined the event. The vandalism happened in the late-afternoon; the police violence and mass arrests only got underway after the damage was done and the vandals were gone. In fact, the police let the vandals act and disperse without lifting a finger against them.

The protestors who remained scattered across the city into the evening were certainly angry, and sometimes rowdy, but largely didn’t engage in property damage or vandalism. They gathered, they chanted, they sat on city streets where police didn’t want them. And for that, they were beaten and hauled away.

The police started deploying ever-more aggressive tactics against people on the streets, including mass arrests, kettling, riot-line charges and beatings, in the service of secret laws and spurious “breach of peace” charges. To reiterate, these were not directed at vandals, who were long gone, or even at particularly unruly protestors. Journalists were detained. People out to get groceries were detained. People out walking their dogs got detained. People who took the wrong turn on their bike were detained.

Protest is legitimate.

At the G20, it’s important to distinguish between “vandals” and “protestors.” The two are not synonymous: One is illegal and loathsome; the other is utterly necessary.

Not all of the protestors were “peaceful protestors.” There were plenty of protestors who were angry, rowdy, obnoxious, difficult, thoughtless, ill-informed, in-your-face and totally dislikeable. That doesn’t mean they ran around smashing things, or breaking the law. Whatever you make of their politics, their presence was entirely legitimate.

There was no single motive shared by the G20 protestors, just like there is no single incentive that drove the Vancouver mobs to do what they did. But let’s be clear: Protest is a legitimate thing to do on the streets of a city.

To compare a seething mob of drunken douchebags who took the chance to run amuck at the Robson St. Sears, beating those who stood against them while taking cellphone snaps of themselves going “woo hoo!”, with a group of vandals who did a run through Toronto and dispersed is inaccurate.

However, to compare a seething mob of drunken douchebags with those who protested what happened at the G20 is simply wrong.