CBC: Ban summit agents provocateurs: groups to PM
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/18/g20-activists.html
"But when asked about whether the activist organizations would condemn violent protest tactics themselves, the People's Summit organizers wavered."
This has always annoyed me. We organize peaceful protests and say we are against violence and brutality, yet we do not do enough if at all to discourage violence among ourselves, in and near our peaceful protests, or to even condemn such acts. For what, for the sake of maintaining solidarity? With those who are okay with the use of violence and property damage as part of their 'activism'? There resources and set policy for those who would commit sexual assault, yet nothing about willing to risk peaceful protesters and demonstrators with their violent "direct actions".
Until we can openly discourage and openly condemn violence on any sort or form by anyone be they activist or police, we should stop acting like hypocrites and complain about police brutality and agent provacateurs.
-mellian
She did openly encourage peaceful tactics:
"We are encouraging people to participate peacefully in the protests," said Marya Folinsbee, co-ordinator of the People's Summit, but she refused to condemn violent acts by protesters.
Why should there be any special call on someone who is encouraging people to participate peacefully to condemn violent acts? Why should she, more than anyone else, have to step up and condemn anything?
Why assume that because someone is an activist, that they have any special duty to comment on what other activists do?
I am a peaceful protester when I go to protests. I'll never bomb a bank, or throw a rock at police, or anything else like that. The thought that because I'm an activist, I somehow have to answer for people who resort to violent tactics, is insulting. I am a peaceful protester and it's enough for me to encourage everyone else to participate peacefully. It's not my job to police people who choose not to, nor should I have any special duty, more than anyone else, to condemn people who do otherwise.
Also: we don't know what the question and answer was. The reporter is paraphrasing. They're not quoting her directly except where they quoted her saying that the People's Summit encourages peaceful participation.
I mean, they could have asked her, "What is the People's Summit's position on the RBC bombing" and she could have said, "I have no comment." They could have asked her to specifically condemn violent tactics, and she might have said, "I have no comment about that - our position is that we are encouraging people to participate peacefully in the protests."
We don't know what she said to the reporter about violent tactics, because the reporter didn't quote her directly -- they just interpreted and paraphrased.
Let's not devour our own, here. She made a good statement encouraging people to participate peacefully. The reporter clearly has an axe to grind and has found a way to grind it.
The article is spark for bring up this frustration I have and had with protest organizing. Sure, maybe the average individual protester may not care or possibly have shred of responsibility for what others do, but certainly is for the organizers and organizations involved in making the protest happen.
Sure, easy to say we encourage others to peacefully protest, but usually not back with actual action on the matter. Even if the those who commit these violent acts are not part of the organizing, nothing is done about them causing trouble and then hiding among the peaceful protesters to hide, and then we wonder why the police starts tear gassing and clubbing peaceful protesters. As organizers, should be concern about the safety of people attending the protest they organized, and put some resources and policy in place to assure it. This keep be verbally shaming them for such acts, at least near and in peaceful protest, endangering others.
As organizers of peaceful protest, should declare all those committing acts of violence are not part of the peaceful and entirally seperate groups.
Hi mellian, and welcome to babble! There are lots of threads about activism and violence, now known as "diversity of tactics." There are a lot of articles, blog posts, columns and podcasts, not to mention babble topics about these issues. I'd suggest Krystalline Kraus's (a.k.a. statica) blog for some in-depth, first-hand info and discussion, or any of the threads about the Royal Bank bombing here at babble, for some recent discssion.
My personal opinion is that no amount of distancing so-called "peaceful" protests from more hands-on protests will appease the mainstream media and result in them giving honest, detailed and respectful reportage to those demonstrating against the status quo.
The CBC on the radio tonite has her saying they will not condemn violent protests as they represent a wide group of protesters and believe in a diversity of tactics. In other words, she will be peaceful but if you are with them and aint, thats ok with them.
This was part of their hourly news report which I got to hear while driving around the city.
My personal opinion is that no amount of distancing so-called "peaceful" protests from more hands-on protests will appease the mainstream media and result in them giving honest, detailed and respectful reportage to those demonstrating against the status quo.
And "no amount of distancing" seems to be the order of the day.
Politically, (and presumably, political influence is the objective rather than a successful violent revolution) it is stupid beyond belief not to clearly articulate distance from violence and vandalism --which is at least as bad in the public mind from sports event hooliganism.
How can one complain about (or even attempt to distance oneself from) agent provocteurs if their actions are indistinguishable from protest leader okayed violence? Purity of thought?
At least the agent provocateurs have a clear and time-tested winning political strategy.
nothing is done about them causing trouble and then hiding among the peaceful protesters to hide
Out of curiosity... has anyone here seen this happen personally, or is it an urban myth of protesting?
I've never witnessed this phenomenon. I've found that even those who are willing to engage in more confrontational tactics do a pretty good job of respecting the tone and character of less-militant protests. They generally organize their own marches when they want to be more confrontational, and make an effort to ensure everyone understands the more militant tone and increased likelihood of conflict with the cops.
I've been thinking about this and haven't been sure where to post.
I can't speak to the G8/G20, but did experience DOT during the Olympics. Practically speaking, it meant for me that I couldn't participate. The first demo, at the opening ceremonies, I didn't attend becuase my 14 year old dog died. (I understand that not everyone accepts that as a suitable excuse.) I understand it was "successful" - all the protesters respected thhe terms of the action, and i did see MS media coverage of it. (The Olympics continued on stolen native land, so success is relative.)
I had planned to attend the antiwar, anti-occupation demo on the Tuesday. Then the Saturday action happened, where there was some vandalism and violence. I generally accept that I am on the same side as the activists participating in black bloc actions. But the thing is, that whether the those "who are willing to engage in more confrontational tactics do a pretty good job of respecting the tone and character of less-militant protests" and "make an effort to ensure everyone understands the more militant tone and increased likelihood of conflict with the cops," this spills over to future action. So, in Vancouver, the cops brought out the big guns. Literally. And I realize that this is the cops. But it's also predictable. And that's how it was for the rest of the Olympics - the cops were "justified" in their "security measures."
Childcare is hard to come by in Vancouver, and I like to involve my kids in my activism. But I wasn't going to bring my kids to a protest wh ere the guns are out, and tear gas is more likely (didn't happen in Vancouver). Taer gas doesn't respect whatever boundaries we may establish. So, call me "skittish" (as I was called), but I'm not bringing my kids into that sort of situation. I'm not looking for complete safety, but I couldn't justify the risk to myself.
And as an aside, I know Iraqi mothers. They didn't want me taking that risk either.
ETA: You work where you are. So I had worked pretty hard with the other parents in my kid's school - where they were doing colouring pages of the Olympic mascots and learning that awful "I believe" song - and three out of 24 families were going to come out to the Tuesday demo. None of us did.
Having been in town during the 'Owe'lympics I can predict that you will learn to expect and then accept to hear the phrase"we can not confirm or deny" and you will learn to spot the agent provoc.. Remember, they are Cops and they have back-up. You will become somewhat used to having your city decorated in "Israeli Modern" and all your street furniture missing, as much as 80% of the fences will go away slowly but key pieces will stay. You will get used to seeing more kinds of Cops and your busses will be more expensive.
Out of curiosity... has anyone here seen this happen personally, or is it an urban myth of protesting?
Yes. G20, G8, and Bush in Ottawa, and those protests were tame in comparison to what G8/G20 Toronto will be like this weekend.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/22/g8g20-protest-organizers-refuse-to-condemn-violence/
"Syed Hussan, a spokesman for the Toronto Community Mobilization Network, told reporters gathered at the group's Queen Street West headquarters that summit security personnel can expect "different people taking different actions in the ways that they see fit."
When asked if the group, a collection of grassroots organizations and activists, condemns violent protest at the two summits, Mr. Hussan replied: "No.""
Until something is done or at least condemnation of violent 'diversity of tactics', anyone or any group that complains about police brutality and their violence are hypocrites.
I agree with Ripple. I also have a child that I bring to protests if he's with me. If I think there might be violence, or tear gas, or confrontations with the police, we don't go, because I won't put him in danger.
The good thing is that all protests we've been to in Toronto have been peaceful. But it's exclusionary to use tactics that cause people with children, or people who cannot afford to take the chance of being arrested, to stay away. Because tear gas and police overreaction doesn't respect "zones".
I hadn't heard her comments on the radio, Bacchus, just in the article. Interesting.
Yes, most CBC newscasts had her exact quotes.
Out of curiosity... has anyone here seen this happen personally, or is it an urban myth of protesting?
Yes. G20, G8, and Bush in Ottawa
What happened on those occasions?
By 'G8', are you referring to 'Take the Capital' (the anti-G8 convergence in Ottawa in 2002)?
I'm divided on this and it follows from my frustration with demonstrations in general. Since the rise of the right in the 1980's it seems demonstrations have little effect. We saw the largest demonstrations the world has ever seen to preempt the Iraq war - followed by years of brutal war in Iraq. I'm not sure how this comes to be but I'd guess it has something to do with the degree of control enjoyed by the elites, and their ability to manage/ suppress dissent with increasing effectiveness. Perhaps historically things were different and the very presence of a large mob was sufficient to sharpen the thought of the powers that be. Was it because the 'mob' carried with it the threat of possible violence, of uncontrollable anger? Which could and sometimes did erupt into game-changing 'violence'? So that the tyrants sometimes ended up fleeing out the tradesman's entrance dressed as a housemaid?
And once that threat has been - as now - completely and utterly neutralized by brazenly intimidating displays of force from the state, what point a demonstration? It's like 'don't vote, it only encourages the bastards'. Now demonstrations are just a chance for a lot of police to rack up overtime and the more sociopathic among them to beat citizens bloody.
So I find all this discussion about the potential violence of the protestors stunningly beside the point. I think noone should be excluded from any demonstration and the practice of rating upcoming planned actions according to the degree of police response anticipated should be sufficient to keep people safe.
The billion dollars looted from the treasury and funneled into the pockets of the security services is all about Stephen Harper's adolescent fantasy of 'hard power', a little love token to his favorite constituency - violent young males in uniform - and is ALL ABOUT VIOLENCE. FANTASTIC quantities of 'violence' emanate from this gross misuse of citizen's wealth. How many millions of hours did Canadian people toil to create that billion bucks, only to see them ritually destroyed on the altar of a proto-fascist's vanity?
But let's talk about the violence of the protestors, as if it were some pathology. This is Canada, for fucksakes. Oh, is my head in the way of your baton, officer?
I think the term is 'Stockholm Syndrome'.
- violent young males in uniform - and is ALL ABOUT VIOLENCE. FANTASTIC quantities of 'violence' emanate from this gross misuse of citizen's wealth. How many millions of hours did Canadian people toil to create that billion bucks, only to see them ritually destroyed on the altar of a proto-fascist's vanity?
Umm I thought we had a policy at babble of not having stereotypes. I pointed this out in the Alan Smithee thread about 'd-bags' that certain forms are allowed and others aren't. I KNOW women police that actively get involved in 'riot supression'. I also know a many women who support the thug like stance of our present government. In addition to the older males and females that tell them to do so. Gender neutrality please. If we are going to ban words at babble then lets be fair wtr to both genders and age being stereotyped.
I don't think the elite care anymore, canada has been a petree dish to test how far doclile people will allow themselves to be pushed. Apperently pretty far. But then we have people who say we should just be ONLY peaceful. NO WE SHOULDN'T. Power only respects or fears power or violence. Since we just moan and have the odd protest that they can easily ignore, why would they change. I am not advocating violence, but at what point do we turn the corner and say enough is enough.
I wait every summer to watch what interesting pro elite scheme comes rumbling out of the PMO. Just like clock work it happens as soon as the house rises. Go back and check what happens each summer, you will be surprised. So we either have to march everyday or have a general strike or something much larger to enpower the powerless or someone has to lead the way in less than legal ways.
Your enemy can never be seen to have taken up arms against their oppressors or it leads to questions of legitimacy of policy.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/06/23/tor-g20-arrest.html
The story about the guy with explosives(alleged) has had the commments section closed because it doesn't match the narative. I was reading them and the vast majority said it was all trumped up charges.
OK so at what point do we say we are living in a totalitarian country. Self censorship of the media to not allow the plebs the feeble voice of comment on a story. Well done CBC the conservtaive bragcast corporation has outdone itself in the last 4 years. I am so asshamed of this institution. Will no one stand up for journalistic principles at that place!
Union leader says lack of security threat evidence of Harper's summit security overkill
"Shame on the Harper Conservatives for cooking up this un Canadian show of brute force. Obviously the security czars are trying to scare away any legitimate protest."
In a related development, despite the lack of a serious threat, the police have said they will use "infiltrators" in the crowd.
"At the Montebello summit we unmasked three of these "infiltrators" who turned out to be agents provocateurs, one of whom had a rock in his hand. And when they were unmasked they slipped into the police lines," says Coles.
"Maybe Mr. Fadden isn't used to coming out of the shadows, but his admission on CBC TV's The National is shocking," says Coles. "And what is even worse is the Harper government's decision to disregard Fadden's assessment and send in the troops."
Coles is the man who unmasked three Surete du Quebec agents, one of whom was carrying a rock, at the Security, Peace and Prosperity (SPP) Summit in Montebello at 2007. Video of that incident has been viewed over half a million times on YouTube. The CEP filed a motion today under the Quebec Police Act for more information about the actions of those three SQ officers. A complaint was filed by the CEP three years ago with the Police Ethics Committee, but no answers have been forthcoming.
"Stephen Harper's ears should be burning right around now. This summit in downtown Toronto, costing Canadians a staggering amount of money, appears to be simply an exercise in fear mongering and security overkill. The point seems to be to remind Canadians just who is in charge. It may also have the effect of creating an atmosphere of confrontation which may provoke something," says Coles.
Actually, they were outed by some of those terrible blocked-up anarchists, but Coles was the first "legitimate" protester to eventually take notice of their chants of "policiers".
Uh, hey Thorin, just to be clear, I'm not endorsing the 'violent young male' stereotype eh, that's Harper's thing, not mine, ok?
Good point, Freedom 55, but it was Brother Coles who actually knew what to do beyond chanting policiers! That comes from nothing but experience with this sort of thing already.
Uh, hey Thorin, just to be clear, I'm not endorsing the 'violent young male' stereotype eh, that's Harper's thing, not mine, ok?
Sorry I thought that was your description of the police. Which while true is not the entire story. That is all I was trying to point out.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/21/g8-g20-security-csis-fadden.html
"Anarchist groups" and "multi-issue extremists" are a different matter, however, Fadden suggested."
CSIS was refering to low chances of foreign terrorism at G20, not so much domestic.
What happened on those occasions?
By 'G8', are you referring to 'Take the Capital' (the anti-G8 convergence in Ottawa in 2002)?
Right, was not there for that one. Mixed up 2003 protests with G-8, but from everything I read both from the media via activist groups, same sort of thing happened.
The folks who wanted to do "direct actions" and promote "diversity of tactics" tend to stick with peaceful protests, split off to do their violent action, and then return to the peaceful protest, which tend to attract the police to it. I remember in G20, as well when help marshalling (called 'communicators') at the Bush protest of random folks walking with the peaceful protest, spray paint and knock things down, and when it attracts police attention, they hide back into peaceful march.
Out of curiosity... has anyone here seen this happen personally, or is it an urban myth of protesting?
Yes. G20, G8, and Bush in Ottawa
What happened on those occasions?
By 'G8', are you referring to 'Take the Capital' (the anti-G8 convergence in Ottawa in 2002)?
I've been to a lot of rallies and I would call it an urban myth. The only violent assholes I have seen blend into a crowd when outed for their actions blended into the police lines not the protesters. I was at BC Place I saw the assholes go back behind the police lines after trying to provoke the Black Bloc into violence. The Black Bloc being the security team for the Elders merely passed him up through the crowd to the front to join his buddies BEHIND THE POLICE LINES.
So enough urban myths give us some actual events.
Good point, Freedom 55, but it was Brother Coles who actually knew what to do beyond chanting policiers! That comes from nothing but experience with this sort of thing already.
I think they effectively neutralized the agents provacateurs on their own. But yes, Coles had the profile and position to make sure the incident was the subject of public scrutiny and debate.
What happened on those occasions?
By 'G8', are you referring to 'Take the Capital' (the anti-G8 convergence in Ottawa in 2002)?
Right, was not there for that one. Mixed up 2003 protests with G-8, but from everything I read both from the media via activist groups, same sort of thing happened.
The folks who wanted to do "direct actions" and promote "diversity of tactics" tend to stick with peaceful protests, split off to do their violent action, and then return to the peaceful protest, which tend to attract the police to it. I remember in G20, as well when help marshalling (called 'communicators') at the Bush protest of random folks walking with the peaceful protest, spray paint and knock things down, and when it attracts police attention, they hide back into peaceful march.
If you've seen that sort of thing happen, I'll take your word for it. Personally, I've yet to see anything like that.
I have seen marches split into more confrontational/less confrontational components on several occasions, but I've never seen the more confrontational group try to rejoin the other group later on. [And to be perfectly blunt; in most of these cases the only difference between the two groups is that one follows a march route that has been pre-negotiated with the police, while the other marches without communicating their intentions to the police.]
With respect to what you've read about Take the Capital, I think you've heard wrong. There were two marches over two days. The first was a snake march which was always clear about being confrontational. I suppose it's possible that some people may have wanted to join the march unaware of its intended tone, but given the huge amount of fear-mongering by the police and media in the days leading-up to the march, this seems unlikely. The second march - the No One Is Illegal march - was meant to be spirited and militant, but not physically confrontational. And it wasn't. The sole incident that could have gotten out of hand happened before the start of the march when the police attempted to seize the sound van. A group of black blockers from the Maritimes managed to surround the van to stall the police until a larger crowd could be summoned. Ultimately, the police backed-off, and the march proceeded without further incident.
umm... were those burning police-cruisers recently-added models, or were they strategically-placed scrappers about to be retired?
If the latter, I respect Toronto's finest for their frugality.
Bang for the buck and all that.
Carry on.
Odd you would think TOs finest wouldn't abandon cop cars or being only a few meters away might stop the trashing of stores, unless they were told to let them for the media. Then on sunday bashing skulls of anyone they saw. Yes TO finest(and all the call ins) did a fine job of banging a lot of people. Problem is where does the buck stop?