The major mobilization on Saturday, dubbed the "2010 Heart Attack" began in the early hours of the morning, with around 300 activists gathering at Thornton Park under a heavy police presence to march through the streets of Vancouver in an attempt to disrupt "business as usual" on the opening day of competition of the 2010 Games.
The march departed from Thornton Park just after 9:00 am, with the goal of reaching the intersection of Denman and Georgia, where buses destined for the Whistler venues have to pass. Police on bicycles ringed the march as it snaked its way through the streets towards the upscale downtown, turning up Hastings Street and moving into the heart of the city, nearly abandoned streets giving way to larger crowds as it progressed.
Early on an apparent agent provocateur moved into the crowd, pushing and taunting marchers before darting to the sidewalk, at times stopping to talk with police before running forward to taunt the crowd again. As the protest moved through the streets, some participants overturned mailboxes and newspaper boxes, pulling them into the street in an attempt to block traffic.
Minor property damage occurred along that march, and as demonstrators reached the shopping district of Georgia Street, a group of protesters broke one of the display windows of the Hudson's Bay building, one of the national sponsors of the Games, and one which has come under criticism for both its long history of colonialism and its sourcing of Olympics sweaters from China rather than the Cowichan nation. A ball of red paint was also thrown at the window. Despite a heavy presence at the scene, no arrests were made.
As the march continued through the downtown, with chants of "No justice, no peace" and "Whose streets? Our streets!" echoing through the buildings, the police presence intensified. Vans full of police in full riot gear descended on the march, and the number of police on bicycles increased markedly. With those on bicycles forcing onlookers and some of the marchers to the sidewalk, the riot police moved in from behind the marchers, with numerous police cars and wagons following closely behind. There were scuffles as the police moved to isolate the main body of the march from legal observers and onlookers who were filming, and one woman was arrested after being wrestled to the ground by a number of officers.
The marchers were eventually surrounded by riot police, some of whom were armed with automatic weapons while others brandished plexiglass shields and batons. After police on bicycles stopped a group of onlookers from proceeding, separating them from the march by about half a block, police moved in and made a number of arrests. Some in the crowd fought back or attempted to "un-arrest" those targeted by the police. Both riot police and police on bicycles forced observers and legal teams to the sidewalks as they put those arrested into wagons. As the police moved in and divided the crowd by creating wedges between different groups of protesters, some smaller groups split from the main march, some of them pursued by groups of police.
Smaller groups spread throughout the downtown core were split off by police and surrounded by riot police at a number of locations. One group of about 30 people, which included a marching band and a number of dancers, were surrounded on all sides by riot police as supporters were kept at a distance by heavily armed police and police on bicycles. The crowd, which was forced to the sidewalk by police by threats of arrest chanted "Let them go!" as those surrounded by the police held their hands in peace signs and attempted to negotiate their way to the sidewalk. As the standoff between trumpets and truncheons continued, some in the crowd turned to chants of "This is weird. Let them go." After being surrounded for over half an hour and prevented from leaving, the police eventually allowed the band and its supporters to disperse.
In all a total of 13 arrests were reported by the legal support team, and five are being held and may be charged. Protesters have begun jail support at the police station at 222 Main in support of those arrested.
By 4:00 pm, the most heavily damaged window at Hudson's Bay Co. had been replaced.
Scott Harris is the Prairies Regional Organizer for the Council of Canadians
Scott,
Your report omits the fact that the protestors responsible for the property damages were masked and that, while wearing those mask, they intimidated and assaulted passersby.
Did this detail escape your attention or did you deem in irrelevant (or perhaps inconvenient.)
Don't know about you, but when folks wearing balaclavas march en masse through my neighbourhood, intent on getting in people's faces, I not only want the police to confront and arrest them, I insist on it.
truewest, do you have any evidence that only the masked protesters were arrested?
Didn't think so.
As someone who was there I have to say this report is full of inaccuracies. There were many people involved with this protest that were there with legitimate concerns. However they sheltered and dare I say aided a violent masked contingent amoungst them. There were no agent provocateurs, there were like myself ordinary citizens willing to target the people with masks on. They had no place in a legitimate protest. Unfortunately the action taken by the few ruin the greater message. If protesters wish to have a voice that is listened to and respected they must not allow violent individuals to be a part of their protest. At no time did anyone in the march turn upon the masked criminals amongst them. I hope more people on the street confront and de-mask these animals. I for one will be ripping masks off of people the next time I see this behaviour.
nologo,
Do you have evidence that only masked protestors caused property damage or intimidated passersby?
Didn't think so.
BTW, if I have to listen to one more activist excuse this sort of thuggery as "diversity of tactics", I'm going express my disagreement with their choice of language by hurling a brick through their window. This bit of euphemistic nonsense is as intellectually dishonest as "collateral damage".
STOP sensationalizing your report. You failed to mention that those rifles had non-lethal rounds in them. You're just spreading rumors to incite violence. I believe in positive change. Rosa Park and Gandhi were successful.
to respond to the idiotic and hypocritical post by 2010protests:
you seem to sugges that the fact that the police had "non-lethal" rounds is somehow less violent, and at the same time you claim this author is inciting violence? give me a break. the only thugs and criminals on the streets of vancouver right now are the police.
rosa parks and gandhi never encouraged people to back down in the face of police violence. you would be an embarassement to both of them.
much respect to the author of this article for resisting the mainstream media's characterization of the anarchists as violent.
Aaron you are delusional. I was there and I personally saw the behaviour of the few amoungst the larger group. To characterize the anarchists as anything but violent would be an outright lie. The police on the other hand were professional and composed. I guarantee there was no police violence.
I would also like to mention that most of the protesters were there with legitimate concerns. The majority were well behaved, and proudly stated their cause. There was a small minority whom took it upon themselves to ruin the day for all. The only problem I had with the larger group was that they condoned the actions of the few anarchists by sheltering them in the centre of the march.
I would also like to mention that CBC's coverage was very fair and balanced. The mainstream media also interviewed people involved in the protest, if you go to CTV's website they have an excellent interview with a woman that was inviolved in the protest.
There is little point in defending this article as anything more propaganda.
"nologo,
Do you have evidence that only masked protestors caused property damage or intimidated passersby?
Didn't think so."
truewest:
Jesus Christ...copying whatever I say. How old are you? There may or may not have been unmasked protesters causing property damage, but you're the one saying that it was masked protesters who were responsible for property damage and intimidating passersby, and that you wanted them arrested, remember? If you can't get your story straight, that's not my problem.
There's no evidence any masked protester was arrested, only unmasked protesters. So, still can't answer my question, huh? Didn't think so.
nologo,
I was pointing out the paucity of evidence generally, and the absurdity of your insistence that in order to condemn the masked thugs wandering through my neightbourhood, I was required to prove a) only masked thugs caused property damage and b) that only masked thugs were arrested.
Incidentally, there's no evidence that only unmasked protestors were arrested, since all protestors were unmasked during the arrest process.
My larger point was that Scott Harris's story omits a key fact and, given the clear evidence that a large number of protestors were masked, its hard not to conclude that the omission was delibarate, which is to say, dishonest.
truewest,
I wasn't insisting on any such thing. You can condemn masked protesters wandering through your neighborhood all you want. Your response to the story seemed to suggest that being masked automatically made one responsible for property damage (please reread your original statment), and that therefore anyone masked should be arrested because they could only be simple thugs and not, say, agent provocateurs, for example. But in fact, there is no evidence (to date at least) that any masked protesters have been arrested. It would seem odd that despite a billion dollars in security, more than 1000 totalitarian surveillance cameras in place, and police presence virtually everywhere, no masked protesters who caused property damage have been arrested. Perhaps maskless protesters who caused property damage have been arrested, but you initially weren't talking about those people in your first post.
I didn't get this: "Incidentally, there's no evidence that only unmasked protestors were arrested, since all protestors were unmasked during the arrest process." If non-masked protesters were arrested, how could they be "unmasked during the arrest process"?
And if acting menacing is grounds for arrest, then a lot of police should be arrested (and I'm not talking about just during the Games).
Anyway, enjoy the Olympics and have fun paying for it for decades to come.
Anyone who would participate in a rally causing destruction of property and "bullying" style tactis does not have my backing. I remember these type of people in high school. They love to fight, and believe they are doing so in the name of social justice. They were the same type of people who said, "Hey, let's protest. Let's have a walk out!" at school and they didn't really care about the issue, they just wanted an excuse to be rowdy and leave class. If they really want to get their message across, let the media film their written message on boards and signs to the rest of the world. Once this whole thing is over, the aggressive protestors will look for their next fight instead of using all their energy towards volunteering to help the homeless on the street, in the soup kitchens and helping build homes.
The real ‘riot' here is that you people actually wake up thinking you are doing the work of leaders. What a waste of human spirit. Clearly your organization and it's followers lack sufficient DNA to actually contribute to society, so you waste your days tinkering away at misguided opposition to something you obviously don't understand. To you it's just another public forum to display your ignorance.
Every Olympic 2010 protest or interview I have seen highlights the opposition's inability to draw a straight line from concern to possible alternative. It is also quite clear that no one on your team need concern them with truth or facts. I bet your team motto is "Since we really can't do anything of value, let's just try to screw things up".
Every day our world's resources become more valuable, precocious commodities that are drawn down upon by people just like you. Your kind takes from our rich resource pool, but contribute nothing in return. From what I can see your most valuable contribution to the 2010 Olympics would be to collectively jump off the Lion's gate bridge. But even then I guess we would be stuck cleaning up after you.
Great article, moving past the state & corporate media whining about the "lost message", as though we should be content waiting for the golden moment when the media will approve of resistance tactis and suddenly cease reporting lies and spin.
It doesn't matter if out-of-touch liberals cry over a few smashed corporate windows and propaganda boxes: more and more of us don't care what you think. Go ahead and pursue your status quo politics of fear and condescension: the resistance movement has an energy you may never understand. The violence of the colonial order flashes forth once in a while, for the "public" to see. Move past the fear of anarchists: let's talk about police brutality and repression, gentrification, land theft, and jingoistic patriotism.
Sorry ... didn't realize the post had attracted comments.
In roughly chronological order:
"Your report omits the fact that the protestors responsible for the property damages were masked and that, while wearing those mask, they intimidated and assaulted passersby. Did this detail escape your attention or did you deem in irrelevant (or perhaps inconvenient.)"
My report also omits the fact that police were masked. So, I suppose I would say "irrelevant" on both sides.
As far as intimidating and assaulting passersby: it's a first person account, and I didn't witness such behaviour, so I can't comment on whether or not it occurred.
"There were no agent provocateurs ..."
I actually said "apparent agent provocateurs" based on things I witnessed and photographed, and which, frankly, was reinforced for me when I was followed for about a block and half by the same person the next day at the Memorial March. I don't know for sure the person was an agent provocateur, but in my judgement it seemed likely.
"STOP sensationalizing your report. You failed to mention that those rifles had non-lethal rounds in them."
For obvious reasons I have no way of knowing what is in the police's weapons. There were definitely at least two types of weapons (as the pic with this post indicates). One seems clearly to be a non-leathal weapon, but the other one appears to be a standard weapon that could be loaded with live ammunition. Weapons that I've seen (in my admittedly limited experience) with non-lethal rounds in them (such as rubber bullets) have extended barrels and colour-coded clips to distinguish them from weapons with live rounds. I'm certainly no weapons expert, but I don't think that it's "sensationalizing" to write what I did, and I'd be curious to know the proof you have that some of the weapons did not have live rounds in them.
"I guarantee there was no police violence."
This simply isn't true and there is an abundance of video to prove otherwise. You can have a debate about the extent to which the amount or use of violence by police was or was not justifiable, but to say that it didn't occur is demonstrably false.
"The only problem I had with the larger group was that they condoned the actions of the few anarchists by sheltering them in the centre of the march."
Based on my observation, the opposite was true. Almost all of the so-called "Black Bloc" were either at the front or back of the march (this can be seen in video and pictures of the march), and there was a flag with a dove on it flown in the centre of the march which organizers indicated at the beginning was the "green zone" of the march. I also had no way, and I imagine you don't either, of determining any individual's political beliefs based on their actions.
"There is little point in defending this article as anything more propaganda."
Again, this was my observation. I chose not to editorialize the events, so to call it propaganda (I'm assuming there's a missing "than" in your final sentence) is a bit of a stretch.
"My larger point was that Scott Harris's story omits a key fact and, given the clear evidence that a large number of protestors were masked, its hard not to conclude that the omission was delibarate, which is to say, dishonest."
As I said above, I also omitted that police were masked. And that some people wore black, that someone wore a Cyrano de Bergerac mask, that there were both women and men in the march, that some police yelled at me and pushed me, and a whole host of other things. As you also say, there was "clear evidence" that some of the protesters were masked, so that detail is obviously beyond debate to anyone who is even remotely familiar with any of the coverage of the march. I don't think that omitting facts that I don't feel were relevant is proof of dishonesty. There were also plenty of people wearing masks during Friday's demonstration and Monday's march, so I simply don't think that the fact that there were also people wearing masks on Saturday's is terribly relevant.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
s
Comparing clearly identifiable police members with clearly cloaked and unidentifiable black bloc thugs is absurd.
The police protect us against harm. The black block thugs are there to harm us. To say one is in any way the same as the other is just word play and has no substance.
All I will say in my defence is that anti Olympic protest is entirely defensible. However violence and the destruction of public and private property is not defensible. Violence on any account, IS NEVER defensible. Protests should be et large, climb buildings, hanging banners,para-troopers, setting off fire works, do anything to make a point. Do not riot, or damage public or private property. The Olympics are a legitimate target. Lets do ANYTHING to improve the homeless situation in Canada, as well as numerous other issues that should be dealt with when hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars are being spent on public events. Do not assume that the majority of Canadians do not agree with us. We need to find a way to convince average Canadians that the greater good is better than the ME society. We are all given regular doses of societal heroin. Buy, buy, buy. It is incumbent upon all of us to enlighten the majority of Canadians that there really is a better way. Violence is not the path to that enlightenment. Please everyone convince those around you that we must care for everyone around us. All people are equal. We must not lose what began and drove the foundation of our great nation. All of us need to return to what Norman Bethune, and J.S. Woodsworth espoused. There is truly a better way. Now is the time for all centrist and leftist Canadians to unite. We need to find a way to combat the lazy non-commital centre right voting that is destroying our otherwise responsible and caring national psyche. There must be a party that is Liberal, and I mean Ed Broadbent slash Trudeau, left Liberal. PLEASE!