Expose the vandals

Do you consider the police "vandals"?

What about the gangsters, hoodlums and thugs who go by the name "Toronto Police Service"?

I agree. I think people are missing the subtlety of the OP.

Somebody save that video before ctv takes it off their website.  There is a lot of evidence on the web,  But who are the right people you want to present it to?   Bill Blair openly says that he doesn't care what Torontonians think. 

We have a face and a video, remind. I'm not saying the face belongs to a provacateur. I am saying the face belongs to a man vandalizing a police car. And for some reason, that I can't figure out, only activists seem interesting in identifying the culprit. I'm just saying is all.

I want that chick with the umbrella to answer a few questions. Can anybody get a screengrab of her face? There are a couple of good face shots of enablers who tried to stop photos who probably know the vandals. I do not know how to scoop that video off of CTV. Somebody please get it on youtube fast.

The question is also raised here: http://www.acreativerevolution.ca/node/2474

and here: http://openfile.ca/blog/man-black

Journalist Antonia Zerbisias has been tweeting about him today, too.

Shall we expose the Visigoths next?

I wish I could say the same for this thread. I find it rather disconcerting. I can appreciate the intent to expose provocateurs. even though the thread is not entitled "Expose the Provocateurs" On the other hand I am not comfortable with the idea of turning people over to the cops or having them encounter the criminal justice system. How many do we throw to the cops in the hope of catching a provocateur?

Hey N.R.KISSED,

I find it rather disconcerting that you condone vandals in my city. I do not know where you are from but you can go trash your own city. I will never support any pricks who vandalize. This thread is to expose any and all vandals. I would love to uncover any provocateurs. Vandals are not my brothers. Toronto may have some problems but when compared to all other cities with populations of 5 million+ this city is one of the greatest to raise your family and live a decent quality of life with respect for all. People with your attitude sicken me and if your attitude is embraced by the majority of this board then I obviously came to the wrong place. I want the criminals who vandalized this city to be exposed - whether they are agent provocateurs or idiot vandals trashing a Mom-and-Pop leather store on Yonge Street.

So screw you N.R.KISSED!

Psst.  This is N.R.KISSED's city too.  He's a Torontonian. And even when we disagree, I recognize he's an ally. I think your hostility towards him is out of line.

That said, I also think the cops should have focused their energy on the window smashers (which is what they were paid a billion dollars to do, among other things) instead of attacking peaceful protesters. I also don't think there's any place for smashing windows and torching police cars.  So if they aren't provocateurs and cops catch the people who did it, I won't cry.  I think they should have been stopped by police as soon as they started pulling that shit.

But there are people who also recognize that the justice system is flawed to the point that they don't want to voluntarily give anyone up to it, even people who do stupid shit like this.  I can respect that point of view.

Fully agree. My emphasis all along has been that we must avert and (where we can't) deal with provocations ourselves. It is fatally naive to see the cops as any kind of "allies" in this struggle. I am also extremely skeptical of the kind of "exposé" that says, "the cops didn't do their job". People must clearly learn what the true job of the cops is, and that the agents provocateur work hand-in-hand with that real job, whether they do so wittingly or not.

Well, there we part ways. "Vigilantism" (though the word has the wrong connotations) is exactly what the movement must do - police itself, organize itself, suppress provocations itself.

Not very telling point. The police have pointed to the "brilliant" decoy tactics of the "criminal conspirators", which allegedly threw the police off-guard in the early stages. The broader point to be made is that individual assholes and the police do exactly the same damage, in conscious or unconscious coordination, to our struggle. If we find concrete evidence of collaboration, all the better. But we may not, and we must make our point anyway.

[Mod hat on]

Hey Leninist. You're new here. Don't talk like that to other babblers. This is your first and last warning.

[Mod hat off]

And my original comment way upthread (and I did look at both links) is to question why is a certain kind of violence framed as criminal, and other kinds, like violence done by armed agents of the state, or by capitalists, like NRK is referring to, not thought of as violence that needs to be stopped?

I support catching the asses that committed vandalism and harm to property, but my preference is to hold the police accountable who assaulted protestors, kidnapped people off the street, violated human and civil rights, etc. But that's me.

@ Maysie

On different forms of violence, Agreed. I think the difference is that the case against the police is solid (even the mainstrem acknowledges it), and when cops screw up or are given an unethical job to do it is clear where to direct our anger and action.

With the vandals the case is more grey, because some people see them as allies with objectives ostensibly similar to ours, and some of their tactics have been seen to be helpful. And in terms of responding to it, they don't have an office where we can make a complaint.  It is even more muddy because many of them are anonymous, and there is evidence of the cops masquerading as them.

So I don't think the fact people are focusing more on them means they are disregarding the violence perpetrated by the state.

You do realize that the Black Bloc was the only group at the G8/G20 that kept its word? Not the politicians, police, or "regular" protesters.

Not at this very moment they aren't, but when they show up they are a group, then they disband until the next time they're needed.

Those unwilling to fight the revolution, one busted window at a time... 

Good discussions though, nice to see this sensitive issue being taken up here.  I'm not comfortable with "outing" these supposed vandals in this particular way myself or giving any information directly to the authorities.   Since there's seems to be some question just who this "Black Bloc" really represents though, maybe some pressure could be put on the local law enforcement authorities to give out their information on who they busted for what act of vandalism.  Put it back on them, as I noticed myself that security guards and cops often stood by while a handful of idiots threw stuff at windows, even when only one or two were involved.  Then took down others who just happened by.  Just like in Vancouver.  That could be useful both ways in clearing all the non-violent protestors who were detained and putting the pressure back on them.  If it turns out that any cops are suspected for instigating any of this, or worse, taking part, then *they* should be exposed as betraying their official responsibility towards those who employ them (the public) for petty political purposes asnd made to foot most of the bill.  Heads would roll.

I never suggested turning anyone *over* to the cops, I said I wasn't comfortable with that idea either, but if the bulls let all the actual vandals walk while arresting bystanders then that too could be used against them.  

great, the working class turning on each other. What's the big deal about some broken windows? How many workers were expoited to build those windows and put them there?

Same thing with the cars. Big deal, So what?

Don't fall for the tricks. Stick to the message.. Capitalism is sucking you dry, not some guy burning a cop car or smashing a window.

I think that pragmatically speaking the best bang for the buck will be in going after the laws that were abused by the police rather than the BBers.

We can "use" the BB incidents as examples of police failure to help turn average citizens towards the obvious truth about their police force, but that doesn't mean we have to turn anyone over to the police.

Turning these people over to the police raises concerns for me as well ... I don't trust the police (the city or provincial legislators either for that matter) to be able to act fairly on any information we might give them, and turning your worst allies over to your enemy known for abuse of law and justice doesn't seem to me to be a correct move.

I think the point of those pictures that Lennonist posted by Jude MacDonald was that the particular "black bloc" person in those pictures looks like a cop. A lot of people think that the worst of them, the instigators that got everyone else going, were undercover cops, and that's why they didn't bother covering their faces -- because they knew they didn't have anything to lose because they were just doing their jobs as cops.

I wouldn't go out of my way to hand over a black bloc protester to the police -- why they hell should I do their job, I pay them more than enough to do it themselves. 

For me, it's about exposing agents provocateurs.  I don't give much of a shit about the unwitting dupes of the cops.  The cops wanted the black bloc protesters to do exactly what they did, probably infiltrated them in order to egg them on, and the black bloc did it, and then gave the cops the pretext to go after the peaceful protesters.  I want the cops who duped them, not the dupes themselves.  They'll grow up eventually and figure out they're being duped.  The cops are the nefarious ones.

If there were cops infiltrating the groups and egging them on, as has been suggested, or if there were cops leaving bait cars and hoping something would happen, or if there were cops among who started the rioting, as many people suspect of that one unmasked guy in black who started trashing the police car with no interference from police, then they should be exposed.

I believe there was outrage, Tommy.  I seem to remember that a lot of people were angry and demanded answers and showed up at City Hall, etc.

Well, I think you're wrong.  A lot of people were outraged by it and demanded answers.  It ran for at least a week or two in the Toronto media.  The media uncovered all aspects of the story including the company's neglect, etc.  I don't remember all the details now, but people in Toronto were reading about it for a while, and upset for a while too, that this could happen in a residential neighbourhood.

And the truth is, for this incident now, the media is focusing a lot more on the cops' inaction than they are on the identities of the black bloc.

I think it was Friday or Saturday around noon I was walking away from the crowd along Dundas East from University and I saw an old white van that was flagging the cops saying they had someone that was injured and was loosing consciousness so the police did approach and assisted them, they pulled off to a side street and they opened the truck and indeed there was an injured man in the back of the truck.

I later was watching the news at night and saw the video of the days events and one of the stores that was trashed was a Starbucks across from CityTV/MuchMusic and in the video out front of the Stabucks I saw the exact same people? Is that a coincidence? I've been wondering if they were the ones who trashed the Starbucks? Yesterday I went up to the protest at Queenes Park on July 1st and saw the same girl that was at the scene of the man injured. Just wondering.

Saw these clowns everywhere downtown and they would approach the police riot squad lines and try to get the officers to crack a smile.

Daniel .. Toronto

 In this case, is it the job of the Left to help the state in the prosecution of crimes against property?

I asked specifically in relation to the G20 events, Unioinist. I see your questions as non-sequitors, unless of course they were merely designed to set up your last paragraph.

Then I'll put you down as a "yes" to my question in #49, Unionist.

Ennir, the G8 protesters did not commit any acts of violence or vandalism that I saw.  The Black Bloc elements that did these things didn't even seem to be a part or associated with any of the protesters.  They were on their own, hid their identity and were on a mission to destroy, and destroy they did.  I didn't see any protester join them in that.  I saw the police stand by without making any attempt to stop them.

The people who did the vandalism are not allies of the protesters and their identity should be revealed and they should be brought to justice, IMO.  If it turns out that some of them were agents of the police, higher levels at the police should be held accountable.  In any case to find out these things we need a truth commission or at least a public inquiry.

I thought that was what I said basically, the black bloc is no friend to peaceful protesters, they use the same tactics that those who make war do.

Well since we ARE now off on this tangent and no longer longer trying to identify people.....


Why should we stop them? Maybe you might need to go get milk for your cereal this morning, for one thing.

Sorry, but some of these assumptions are simply ridiculous. Living lives counter to the capitalist norm? What do these valiant heroes eat? Leaves? Do they strap bark to their feet for shoes? No, I imagine they go to the store for at least some of it... the same stores some people here are justifying smashing up run by people who are being painted as capitalist exploiters.

I have a part-time small business. Unfortunately I haven't managed to catch any workers and enslave them in my basement, so I guess I'm not doing my job of exploiting very well. And as it happens I generate more money for the provincial and federal governments, suppliers and some of those oppressed contractors than I do for my own evil empire, and I imagine many of these corner store running dogs are just the same.

Of course corporate property is not more valuable than human life (though I assume some of these business are not actually corporations but - like mine - personal property). But why don't these heroes pile their own stuff on the lawn and burn it up as a demonstration against corporate power? Why don't they attack a coffeshop where they hang out, or whatever place they earn their livelihood? And whose lives are they saving by breaking shop windows? I must have missed the footage where they freed the slaves from the grocery store basement.

IN response to other peoples' comments, I'm not anxious to turn "comrades" over to the corrupt police. But there are ways of engaging with them yourselves. And like it or not, we do not have the option to simply write off the police as an oppressive force. Our only choice is to hold them to account and work to get them to do their real job of upholding the law. Like it or not they are the arm of the government, and they have the law behind them. To refuse to engage with them is to deny the law, and it does nothing to get them under control.
It's a foolish road to go down, IMO, because like it or not, when your house is broken into, or you are attacked, or you need someone to uphold the law for you, who are you going to call?

(edit)

And Cytizen H -

know what happens when businesses have too much crime and not enough revenue? They pack up an leave, and you wind up with a situation like here in Saskatoon, where people in a large residential area in  the centre of town have no choice but to buy groceries at convenience stores or take a cab or walk to the large chains.

One thing that has been conspicuously missing from the G20 protests (at least to my eyes) is a statement by those who organized the acts of vandalism as to how it integrates with the larger protest movement as a whole. The protests in Vancouver ("Clog the arteries of capitalism") were quite clearly part of an organized demonstration, made in concert with Native elders and peaceful-protest organizers (whether or not they were effective, or successfully integrated is another question, but the attempt was made and broadcast). That doesn't seem to be happening in the case of the G20 protests.

I can conclude that the organizers are either detained (however if that is the case then, if they organized with peaceful organizers, why aren't the other organizers defending them?) or they are embarrassed and ashamed at the failure of their action, in which case they should acknowledge that failure. But if the Vanoc 2010 vandalism seemed disorganized, the G20 seemed like utter chaos. Who organized these actions and why haven't they spoken up?

I made a similar point in my previous post. I've seen quite a few critiques of those who have denounced the black bloc tactics at G20 but haven't seen any statements from the black bloc groups taking ownership of their actions, and making it clear that the police justification for a crackdown on peaceful protesters does not hold up.

There are protesters who distance their actions from those of the black bloc because they had no idea the black bloc was going to do what they did. When they are questioned about it, they have to make it clear it wasn't their action and they did not have any hand in it. Then the blac bloc supporters condemn them as tools of the state. Well, where is the blac blocks responsibility as allies (if thats what they are) in any of this? Shouldn't the black bloc at least issues statements taking responsibility for their actions and at least explaining why they did what they did to those who paid the consequences for the black blocs actions?

Because the protesters don't have a mass media outlet to put present their message.  Some union leaderships did in fact put out statements similar to what you are looking for.  Did you hear of it?  From your message I get the impression that you didn't.  I don't blame you because  the TV networks didn't cover it and they didn't interview them.  They do however put the message of the police chief on the air... repeatedly.  Every time he says something stupid or outrageous, they interview him again to "clear up" his last goof.  I wish they would give the march organizers half as much of a chance to present their message.

Yes, sorry peeps, I missed this.

turtle, perhaps you are mistaking me from a MSM consumer who lacks critical thought. As it happens, I pick up a great deal of communiqués from unions, protest groups, and colleagues who participate in these kind of demonstrations. Indeed, many of them are posted here on babble and rabble. I have yet to see anything approaching what you describe. I also don't take as hard a line on violent action as others in this thread, and don't support handing over a potential ally who broke an HBC window to the police because I think it will protect the cause. Lennonist's question in the OP is loaded with unasked questions, many of which have been opened up in this thread, and I think the silence we've heard from those responsible for the vandalism goes a long way to speaking to those questions.

That said, if you have a statement defending and explaining the scenes we saw last weekend, by all means, post it.

I would suggest people check out this CTV raw video while it's still available. It will dispel some of the new myths being propagated here. 

I guess it depends on the definition of attack. The vid shows at least one woman shoved and many other photographers menacingly told to "fuck off" in the same tone of voice the cops used to say "move". Is that not a form of violence? 

Like the ones smashed at the doctors' offices at College & Bay? Is that somehow protecting medicare? 

From what I can see, I don't think that's a totally accurate statement. Check the video. .

True that most protestors may not have known "the plan". However, they did post their intentions on the internet more than a month ago as part of their mobilization. Many people, including the march organizers, were aware of their plans to vandalize once the march "turned away" from the fence. Some of us distanced ourselves before the week of action.   And they did do what they promised to do. It should have come as no surprise to the police. The fuzz had their window of opportunity (pun intended) to do something before things got started, declined to do so and then claimed they were caught off-guard. What patent bullshit on the part of the cops. It will be very interesting to find out why they stood down. 

"From each according to his ability to each according to his need." Somewhere on the video is a BBer "liberating" a couple of fruits from a small vendor on Yonge Street. 

Yeah, from the video I've seen, there's good reason to be asking questions. 

@ Cytizen H

Interesting article. I don't know if it fairly represents Mr. Bowen's opinions, but if so he clearly sees only his tactic, and has no real strategy, no understanding that vandalism hurts small investors (including workers' pension funds) much more than it does the power brokers, and he has no historical understanding of what really happens when systems the size of a country fall apart.

I haven't seen a country in real chaos, but I have been in a place experiencing the relatively minor upset of interrupted fuel supply and a power vacuum - Belarus and Ukraine in 1992. We saw Mafia shakedowns, highways filled with people walking with their possessions, long lines in front of stores with almost no food (we brought all our own), army checkpoints and bribery everywhere. We did not go on one major highway because of the threat of hijacking, and we had to hunt for diesel ourselves. In fact we were in the country to deliver medical supplies and clothing because of the poor state of affairs following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So yes, I want to change the global exonomic structure too. But I have some idea of what might happen if we actually broke it.

If there is any upside, I think he grossly overestimates the capacity of his movement to damage the system. But I already spoke about that, and don't need to repeat myself.

Very nice for the Globe to select Mr. Bowen (whoever he is) as a spokesperson for the worldwide forces that are mobilizing to smash capitalism. I'm distinctly unimpressed by his preachings. However, he is welcome to come and promote his suggestions at any meeting of an organizing committee or coalition in advance of the next protest. If his brilliant ideas are not adopted, hopefully he and his acolytes will have the decency to go have their own little window-smashing performance - perhaps sell tickets.

I question whether it gave "us" anything we wanted. Quite the reverse, I suspect. It is not necessarily true that whatever hurts Harper is good for "us". And I don't know that this hurt Harper, either. 

One of the things -- not the only thing, but definitely one -- that Harper and most of the other G20 leaders want is increased tolerance in Western societies for the militarization of our societies. This isn't news; we've had many other signs, more publicly in the U.S. than here, but we have been "harmonizing" with their quiet "regulatory" revolution, and that's where it's all headed.

I agree with you RosaL on that score: I don't know, but I'm guessing that Harper will be able to spin enough of the last weekend for enough people to get at least some of what he wants, and that's how they're doing it. Incrementally.

I agree 100% N.R.Kissed.

Oh shit, have I mis-read this? I thought the point of Judes' piece was to point out a protester that she feels is actually an agent provocateur, nothing that the cops won't go after him since he is one of them so we as the public have to?

Yes and their swift reaction didn't seem accidental but I'm not clear what it means. You should have noticed by now that I'm kinda naive so let me know straight what you mean.  Do you think they are one group of provacatuers where one is vandalizing and the rest protecting him? What is their relationship to the police? If they are not part of the police force then how do the police recruit these groups?

hmmm.. interesting. So you think there were groups at the protest pre planning vandalism using BB tactics and they completely had no connection to any security force.

This raises more questions in my mind.  I'll feel free to ask them and you feel free not to answer what you don't want.

1. In your opinion, what are the leanings of such group(s). Are they fighters for social justice? Or are they just mayhem lovers? Do they have a motive?

2. Why do these groups mainly show at G8 summits and the like but don't paricipate in the other seasonal marches and protests by  social justice groups and sometimes certain interest groups? They seem to have somewhat of an international colour and not be associated with local movements! Do you think they are local or out of towners? Or possibly from outside the country?

3. Do you believe that there are police provocateurs at all?

4. Were you at this Toronto protest?

And finally 5. If you believe that the police and security of the summit employed instigators, provocateurs and undercover spies, what are their numbers in your estimation and what percentage BB did they make?  And what do you think was their pay for the 2-3 days?

.

You have gone from being against violence to supporting it and now you don't think there were any provocateurs, interesting.  Would you have the vandals claim the glory for their own?  But where are they, where are there statements claiming responsibility?

I think there is no doubt that provocateurs were involved, they have been for years and years and years, what makes you think they weren't?  I am also thinking there is plenty of video evidence of their involvement as in seeing them go behind police lines, have you not seen that?

Actually, never mind. Not worth it.

Sorry for the thread drift. 

In short, they would actually get arrested right away at a smaller event.

All that's true, but it's hard to provoke people who don't want to be provoked. It would be nice if the reaction to provocateurs was to yawn at them.

Declaring "victory" because of the burning cop cars is idiotic.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Except, Yonge Street Saturday afternoon, not a cop to be seen from Queen to College but lots all over downtown and plenty in the "red zone".

Daniel .. Toronto