G8/G20: It's here!

I should clarify that never seen or heard or reference to the Black Bloc being only a tactic on CTV; the other source I was thinking of was Globe and Mail coverage last night.

However you look at the mechanics of the protests, whatever you think about the police tactics and whomever you blame, there are some inexcapable conclusions and questions.

It is hard to see a point coming out of the protests other than the violence itself.If the violence is the only point you want to make then participation is worthwhile.

For those who have something legitimate to say in opposition to the G8/20, there is no point in becoming involved. Peaceful protest when it suceeds makes almost no news and when unsuccessful it is easy to be hijacked.

I can't help but conclude that all that effort being wasted in non-violent protest that gets smeared by those who become violent could be better used.

At the same time, I think there may or may not in each confrontation be provocateurs. It is likely however, that often enough, provocateurs would not be required as the event itself will attract people who are more than willing to provide that function. Indeed, the event itself is provocative including the security spending etc. What happened was predictable-- even without provocateurs and therefore why would you bother to risk provocateurs when there will be enough stupid people to perform the service without organization. The burned police cars may have been an error and may have been a surrender on purpose to the violent people that may not have been provocateurs but simply falling in to the trap.

It seems to me that for the effort, non-violent opposition to the G8/20, rather than marching where they will be taken advanatage of would be better of holding some kind of competing event. Indeed, the creation of youth summits have a greater chance of achieving some kind of sharing of a message -- as the "girls summit" did. Having those at a different place or perhaps a different time makes more sense.

I am not arguing that there is not a legal right to direct protest at the fence, what I am arguing is if there is a value for such a protest. I think alternative messages can be better carried. And if you truly believe the agents provocateurs, why not call for nobody to go down there and leave them with no cover.

None of what I am saying here legitimizes the examples of police over-action/brutality we have seen but I think if you keep doing something over and over that does not work then why do it? For a few the only thing is the thrill of throwing a rock at the man-- an outlet for the anger -- but is this helpful? What is achieved?

Sean, with all due respect, that was one of the most demobilizing and fatalistic (and historically totally inaccurate) posts I've ever seen from you. I shudder to think what you would consider to be the yardstick of success of mass mobilizations like this - the G20 becoming instantly nice? The downfall of capitalism?

As for alternate summits, they are always and everywhere. There is absolutely no contradiction between forums like those, and letting people feel the power and the numbers in the street. And you really must moderate your view of the MSM being all-powerful in getting its message across. If that were so, where would the tens of thousands in the street have come from in the first place?

All this to say... I disagree... nonviolently.

Unionist-- I would consider success managing to get a point out like what their opposition is. Some kind of message or gaining of public support.

Nothing came out other than the violence and that is a communications failure. Those who believe in anything else can't see a success here.

Frankly, wasting resources on a protest that can be so easily and predictably undermined, is not the way to oppose this. And in a modern world of communications, I think we can do better than making a pile of handwritten signs nobody will see and being party to the torching of police cars everyone will see-- it does not even matter if those were police agents provocateurs or idiots--the result is the same.

And no, I think relying on failed predictable means of protest like this is the fatalistic point of view. While we still have some other freedoms in this country I think not only can we do more but we must.

http://vimeo.com/12883752

I don't know if this link or a similar link has been posted but it shows how the cops are running into a peaceful crowd of protestors and doing a smash and grab of their own.

It's terrible what is being done. And only the converted will even be aware of it.

We must do better-- it is not enough being right. You must win.

I've been following the liveblogging today mainly at the Grope and Flail, and just in the last few hours, things have got rough for a peaceful group who ended up being kettled at Queen and Spadina. People out shopping got caught. Journalists have been arrested, CTV guys with their ID showing (apparently there will be photos), and there's at least one G&M reporter in there. They've been in the middle of a T-storm for the last hour, too. At one point the crowd sang Oh Canada; the cops let them finish and then charged.

I don't know: it seems to me that as soon as the sun goes down, the cops decide it's payback time, and they don't care who they step on.

ETA: Here's the anthem and the charge.

I love that corner. The whole of Spadina is to me a holy place. I'm trying to remain rational about this, and I'm watching from a distance, about 45 mins away, but I tells ya, that made me cry.

The G20 leaders were never "in" Toronto. They were in their own little hell, which looked to me like some version of East Berlin ca 1965. Richly deserved, too. They didn't see the real streets and the real people. They cheated themselves.

Quote about the cop cars on fire: "Then, an odd thing happened.   The cops retreated and went elsewhere, leaving both cars abandoned."

 Mansbridge also mentioned how it was odd that the Police cars were left there, almost as if it was a target that could not be ignored by protestors.

 However, he did not mention the possibility of Agent Provocateurs [APs] despite the fact that there were proven APs a few years ago, so it is a possibility worth mentioning, so that is at least a suggestion that is was APs who set them ablaze.

  But here WE go - the visually stunning acts get all the attention and the real issues are sidelined.

  Issues? Harper's "Womens Health Initiative" is just a distraction from the fact that these programs have been set up before, and then not funded enough to make a difference. The leaders should have to write a cheque right then and there, and hand it over to an NGO to be implemented.

  Also, the fact that birth control is being ignored as part of the solution makes it that much more useless. And they want to make sure no funding is for abortions...  I don't like the fact that abortion is so often used as a method of birth control, instead of better options for birth control...  but this initiative will only increase the numbers of "backroom abortions" in poor nations, countering the exact thing they are proposing by insisting that none of this money is used to fund abortions. So stupid.

 Someone mentioned the "Gleneagles" pledges that were never funded sufficiently... Quote: "The only promise that counts is the Gleneagles one to increase aid by 50 billion dollars by 2010 and that is the one they have abandoned today," said Fried." -
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/27-4

Just disgusting.

While I have said in this thread that I don't think this type of protest is useful, it is a right.

That video should be seen widely.

I wonder what will happen whe some of this goes to court and the courts are stuck with the legislative requirement to accept the police's word when in some cases they may have video evidence. Then the court will be forced by this crazy legislation to prefer an account by a biased party over actual footage of what happened. If anyone ends up seeing this in court I hope they will come here and document it.

As well, I can't help but recognize the amount the government had at stake in these protests. If there had been no violence or arrests the government would have looked worse with the billion dollar bill. While I thik AP are perhaps more rare than they are claimed to be, there is a clear motive for them this time as a peaceful summit would have been a disaster. This is why I hope people would stay away.

Is this a fact or just one of the mistruths that are thrown about?

And really what business is it of yours to dislike or like, if it is?

I was there today with Mrs. Ramone and kids (4, 9 and 11).  I witnessed vile police state tactics and came close to being arrested myself by heavily armed mounted police, with my 4 year old on the back of my bike, simply for demanding that police xplain why clearly peaceful protesters were being arrested. I'll write more tomorrow.  Best coverage I've seen tonight is on CP24, where they've interviewed several innocent people arrested tonight.  Treason!

Correct me if I am wrong:

I understand that there was a zone around the fence in which police had the temporary powers. But we are seeing these powers involed far from that line. Does anyone know exactly where the police were allowed to use these powers and if it is possible to locate on a map where teh reports of the powers being used are coming from?

Seems the only time the cops WEREN'T using violence was when things were getting smashed. 

I'm about to go to work this morning, riding my bike across Queen St from Parkdale to Riverdale - I hear there are still cops around.  Chief Bill Blair is at this moment being interviewed by the CBC.  He says there was a "criminal conspiracy" that came to the city specifically to do damage, and their actions were justified on the basis of that, etc.  

What a frackin disaster.

Over 900 arrests, they're saying on the news, and Bill Blair says at least 400 of them are a part of the "criminal element."  

Well, off to see the damage.