Behind the Violence, Looting & Vandalism During the Black Lives Matter Riots

Meghanne Uptigrove

Published

5 years ago

6 minute read

It has been just over 2 months since the death of George Floyd in the streets of Minneapolis, Minnesota, at the hands of 3 police officers in broad daylight, ignited a global conversation on police brutality. The significant outrage invoked by this tragedy has manifested across the globe in the form of mass protests under the banner of Black Lives Matter. While a significant number of protests have been peaceful presentations of solidarity and collective calls for change, a number of cities throughout the United States and across the world have been devastated by violent riots, vandalism and looting. The response of the media and general public to these instances of violence, which have left a number of people dead, have dramatically deepened the ideological divide surrounding the already controversial issues of systematic racism and police brutality.

One side of the argument is highlighted by an opinion piece written by Robin D. G. Kelley, an American history professor, published in the New York Times titled “What Kind of Society Values Property Over Black Lives?”. This article argues the media’s focus on looting as a part of the riots is a way to deflect from the central issue. “The police keep killing us with impunity,” says Kelley, “Instead, once the burning and looting start, the media often shifts to the futility of “violence” as a legitimate path to justice.”

Similarly, an InStyle piece by Jacqueline Schneider states, “If you’re more concerned about looted storefronts than the brutal loss of life that spurred these protests, please re-evaluate.” The article goes on to highlight certain leading fashion brands, such Marc Jacobs and Coach, have come out in support of the protests despite the material losses sustained by their brands as a result of the looting and destruction. Marc Jacobs published an Instagram post featuring the vandalism of a Los Angeles branch location with the simple caption, “A life cannot be replaced. Black Lives Matter.”

A number of other works with a similar sentiment have emerged over the last two months, many of which make reference to the work of Martin Luther King Jr. While King is largely known for his unwavering commitment to non-violence in the face of oppression, he “recognized violent political rebellions … as the organic response to racial oppression and structural violence” (1).

““Alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, [the looter] is shocking it by abusing property rights,” he said. The real provocateur of the riots, he argued, was white supremacy.” (2)

Therefore, many of the arguments that do not denounce looting as a part of the riots lean on this ideological argument along with the notion that the destruction of property should not be discussed alongside the loss of human life.

On the opposite side of this controversial debate, journalist Michael Tracey presents an investigative report featuring first-hand stories from shop owners and locals in small US cities that have received minimal coverage throughout the riots. In something of a post-apocalyptic Purge-esque collection, Michael Tracey’s interviews showcase the current quality of life in places like Atlantic City, Fort Wayne, Green Bay, Olympia and more. The impact of the riots in these areas has been the significant destruction of small businesses and housing projects, burnt buildings and cars, shattered glass and windows barricaded with plywood, oftentimes featuring bullet holes.

Photo Credit: Michael Tracey

According to Tracey, who spent six weeks travelling the US collecting testimonies and documenting the unfolding implications of the ongoing riots, “…The primary victims – meaning those who feared for their safety, suffered severe material losses, and whose lives were upended – are themselves minorities, and were targeted by activist whites.”

Tracey shares the stories, fears and opinions of a number of minority locals and shop owners who struggle to make sense of the looting. Victims of the riots highlight the lack of available emergency responders during the crises, adding to the level of fear and helplessness being experienced. In one video, Tracy interviews a local resident, who “recalls being told during the riots that there would be no fire or police service available and people needed to fend for themselves.”

A number of boarded up storefronts, many of which will likely never open again, feature signage with the phrase “Black-owned business”. Tracey believes this is both a statement of pride as well as a plea to be left alone by rioters, “Does the ubiquity of these types of signs, in which owners declare their ethnic or racial status, seem healthy to you?” he asks.

Photo Credit: Micheal Tracey

These disparate opinions position looting and violent rioting as an inevitable response to minority oppression and injustice, while highlighting the logical inconsistency that occurs as a number of those being victimized are themselves, minorities. While this debate continues to unfold, the chaos remains ongoing across the United States, where many protests have continued to take violent turns and the death toll continues to rise.

For more stories, visit Todayville Calgary.

Up Next

Innisfail and Sundre RCMP detachments kept busy by rowdy party goers

Don't Miss

Alberta has an opportunity like never before

Meghanne Uptigrove

Follow Author

Volunteer with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Calgary and Area

Alberta / 5 years ago

Raising the Bar and Drawing the Line – Men for the Eradication of Violence Against Women

Alberta / 5 years ago

Violence Against Women is a Crisis in Every Single City

Alberta

Calgary mayor should retain ‘blanket rezoning’ for sake of Calgarian families

Published on November 17, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Austin Thompson

Calgary’s new mayor, Jeromy Farkas, has promised to scrap “blanket rezoning”—a policy enacted by the city in 2024 that allows homebuilders to construct duplexes, townhomes and fourplexes in most neighbourhoods without first seeking the blessing of city hall. In other words, amid an affordability crunch, Mayor Farkas plans to eliminate a policy that made homebuilding easier and cheaper—which risks reducing housing choices and increasing housing costs for Calgarian families.

Blanket rezoning was always contentious. Debate over the policy back in spring 2024 sparked the longest public hearing in Calgary’s history, with many Calgarians airing concerns about potential impacts on local infrastructure, parking availability and park space—all important issues.

Farkas argues that blanket rezoning amounts to “ignoring the community” and that Calgarians should not be forced to choose between a “City Hall that either stops building, or stops listening.” But in reality, it’s virtually impossible to promise more community input on housing decisions and build more homes faster.

If Farkas is serious about giving residents a “real say” in shaping their neighbourhood’s future, that means empowering them to alter—or even block—housing proposals that would otherwise be allowed under blanket rezoning. Greater public consultation tends to give an outsized voice to development opponents including individuals and groups that oppose higher density and social housing projects.

Alternatively, if the mayor and council reform the process to invite more public feedback, but still ultimately approve most higher-density projects (as was the case before blanket rezoning), the consultation process would be largely symbolic.

Either way, homebuilders would face longer costlier approval processes—and pass those costs on to Calgarian renters and homebuyers.

It’s not only the number of homes that matters, but also where they’re allowed to be built. Under blanket rezoning, builders can respond directly to the preferences of Calgarians. When buyers want duplexes in established neighbourhoods or renters want townhomes closer to work, homebuilders can respond without having to ask city hall for permission.

According to Mayor Farkas, higher-density housing should instead be concentrated near transit, schools and job centres, with the aim of “reducing pressure on established neighbourhoods.” At first glance, that may sound like a sensible compromise. But it rests on the flawed assumption that politicians and planners should decide where Calgarians are allowed to live, rather than letting Calgarians make those choices for themselves. With blanket rezoning, new homes are being built in areas in response to buyer and renter demand, rather than the dictates of city hall. The mayor also seems to suggest that city hall should thwart some redevelopment in established neighbourhoods, limiting housing options in places many Calgarians want to live.

The stakes are high. Calgary is not immune to Canada’s housing crisis, though it has so far weathered it better than most other major cities. That success partly reflects municipal policies—including blanket rezoning—that make homebuilding relatively quick and inexpensive.

A motion to repeal blanket rezoning is expected to be presented to Calgary’s municipal executive committee on Nov. 17. If it passes, which is likely, the policy will be put to a vote during a council meeting on Dec. 15. As the new mayor and council weigh changes to zoning rules, they should recognize the trade-offs. Empowering “the community” may sound appealing, but it may limit the housing choices available to families in those communities. Any reforms should preserve the best elements of blanket rezoning—its consistency, predictability and responsiveness to the housing preferences of Calgarians—and avoid erecting zoning barriers that have exacerbated the housing crisis in other cities.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Austin Thompson

Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Gondek’s exit as mayor marks a turning point for Calgary

Published on November 1, 2025

Todayville

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Michael Taube

The mayor’s controversial term is over, but a divided conservative base may struggle to take the city in a new direction

Calgary’s mayoral election went to a recount. Independent candidate Jeromy Farkas won with 91,112 votes (26.1 per cent). Communities First candidate Sonya Sharp was a very close second with 90,496 votes (26 per cent) and controversial incumbent mayor Jyoti Gondek finished third with 71,502 votes (20.5 per cent).

Gondek’s embarrassing tenure as mayor is finally over.

Gondek’s list of political and economic failures in just a single four-year term could easily fill a few book chapters—and most likely will at some point. She declared a climate emergency on her first day as Calgary’s mayor that virtually no one in the city asked for. She supported a four per cent tax increase during the COVID-19 pandemic, when many individuals and families were struggling to make ends meet. She snubbed the Dec. 2023 menorah lighting during Hanukkah because speakers were going to voice support for Israel a mere two months after the country was attacked by the bloodthirsty terrorist organization Hamas. The
Calgary Party even accused her last month of spending over $112,000 in taxpayers’ money for an “image makeover and brand redevelopment” that could have benefited her re-election campaign.

How did Gondek get elected mayor of Calgary with 176,344 votes in 2021, which is over 45 per cent of the electorate?

“Calgary may be a historically right-of-centre city,” I wrote in a recent National Post column, “but it’s experienced some unusual voting behaviour when it comes to mayoral elections. Its last three mayors, Dave Bronconnier, Naheed Nenshi and Gondek, have all been Liberal or left-leaning. There have also been an assortment of other Liberal mayors in recent decades like Al Duerr and, before he had a political epiphany, Ralph Klein.”

In fairness, many Canadians used to support the concept of balancing their votes in federal, provincial and municipal politics. I knew of some colleagues, friends and family members, including my father, who used to vote for the federal Liberals and Ontario PCs. There were a couple who supported the federal PCs and Ontario Liberals in several instances. In the case of one of my late
grandfathers, he gave a stray vote for Brian Mulroney’s federal PCs, the NDP and even its predecessor, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation.

That’s not the case any longer. The more typical voting pattern in modern Canada is one of ideological consistency. Conservatives vote for Conservative candidates, Liberals vote for Liberal candidates, and so forth. There are some rare exceptions in municipal politics, such as the late Toronto mayor Rob Ford’s populistconservative agenda winning over a very Liberal city in 2010. It doesn’t happen very often these days, however.

I’ve always been a proponent of ideological consistency. It’s a more logical way of voting instead of throwing away one vote (so to speak) for some perceived model of political balance. There will always be people who straddle the political fence and vote for different parties and candidates during an election. That’s their right in a democratic society, but it often creates a type of ideological inconsistency that doesn’t benefit voters, parties or the political process in general.

Calgary goes against the grain in municipal politics. The city’s political dynamics are very different today due to migration, immigration and the like. Support for fiscal and social conservatism may still exist in Alberta, but the urban-rural split has become more profound and meaningful than the historic left-right divide. This makes the task of winning Calgary in elections more difficult for today’s provincial and federal Conservatives, as well as right-leaning mayoral candidates.

That’s what we witnessed during the Oct. 20 municipal election. Some Calgary Conservatives believed that Farkas was a more progressive-oriented conservative or centrist with a less fiscally conservative plan and outlook for the city. They viewed Sharp, the leader of a right-leaning municipal party founded last December, as a small “c” conservative and much closer to their ideology. Conversely, some Calgary Conservatives felt that Farkas, and not Sharp, would be a better Conservative option for mayor because he seemed less ideological in his outlook.

When you put it all together, Conservatives in what used to be one of the most right-leaning cities in a historically right-leaning province couldn’t decide who was the best political option available to replace the left-wing incumbent mayor. Time will tell if they chose wisely.

Fortunately, the razor-thin vote split didn’t save Gondek’s political hide. Maybe ideological consistency will finally win the day in Calgary municipal politics once the recount has ended and the city’s next mayor has been certified.

Michael Taube is a political commentator, Troy Media syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He holds a master’s degree in comparative politics from the London School of Economics, lending academic rigour to his political insights.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country