Privatizing Security, Securitizing Policing: The Case of the G20 in Toronto, Canada VERONICA KITCHEN AND KIM RYGIEL Balsillie School of International Affairs Allegations of police brutality, unlawful detention, and other breaches of civil liberties during the G20 in Toronto in June 2010 provide an important case through which to understand the changing nature of security and policing, raising questions about the political implications of such shifts in terms of police accountability, transparency and democracy. Within the field of public policing, scholars predicted that globalization processes would weaken public policing as a dominant policing institution. Instead, it has expanded, in part, through the convergence of internal and international dimensions of security, whereby new policy networks cooperate in matters of policing and security in a new integrated model, the result of which is a further militarization of urban space and expanded markets for security that lead to the securitization of everyday life. This article examines the case of Toronto’s hosting of the G20 and the role that the Integrated Security Unit played, led by the RCMP and which included private security firms. By focusing on the role of multilateral networks that include private sector actors, we examine the implications of privatization and securitization of policing for democracy, citizenship, and accountability and how they affect the ability of publics to engage in public debate, consult, or protest policies. Introduction 1 The dominant images that emerged from the G20 Meeting in Toronto in June, 2010 were not the traditional family photos of world leaders coming together to advance their global initiatives, but rather those of street protests and violence in the context of a massive security operation and allegations of police brutality, unlawful detention, and other breaches of civil liberties (Malleson and Wachsmuth 2011). Such scenes make the Toronto G20 an important case through which to understand the changing nature of security, particularly in the post 9/11 period in which the market for security has grown, and for understanding the implications of a series of shifts in authority and governance for the nature of democracy and the urban citizen. Since the end of the Cold War, and more particularly since 9/11, scholars have observed that the distinction between inside and outside in international relations has blurred. As part of this transformation, within the area of security studies, Didier Bigo (2011) argues that the domains of internal policing and external defence are no longer separable, but instead merge into one another as part of a “Möbius ribbon” of security networks. In this context, ideas about the meaning of security and the identities of enemies are no longer clear. Similarly, security objectives, mission and guidelines are less certain. As Bigo explains “The boundaries of the security tasks are not fixed through a clear belief of what security is (and what it is not). They [the security agencies and agents] don’t know where the inside ends and where the outside begins. They don’t know where security is beginning and where insecurity is finishing” 1 We would like to thank John Zelenbaba, Rhys Machold, and Jesse Maclean who provided research assistance for this paper. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Kitchen, Veronica and Kim Rygiel. (2014) Privatizing Security, Securitizing Policing: The Case of the G20 in Toronto, Canada. International Political Sociology, doi:10.1111/ips.12052, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12052. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.