BC Civil Liberties' Eby defends his criticism of protesters

Wow....

As someone who supports the position of the non-violent protesters, nothing made me want to keep my distance from them *more*, than the animalistic howls and cheers from the morons in the crowd at the idea of a human being being kidnaped and harmed.

If these are the folk representing a 'peaceful and just society', then I don't know what those words mean anymore.

Well done David Eby, I agree with you 100%, and hope that this movement purges itself of the hatemongers and violent thugs.

Brian Lynchehaun

Same old state-friendly incromprehension.

David Eby sickens me. He offers legal advice and protection for the civil liberties of only those protesters who accept his personal view of appropriate tactics. Anyone else he will denounce openly and happily stand by while the full force of the law is brought to bear on them. Apparently they don't have any civil liberties for him to defend. And all this he claims is in the name of "solidarity"!

Whatever happened to civil liberties associations that fight for the civil liberties of the most unpopular and despised members of society? Do they now regard it as their role to join in on the denunciation of those who don't conform to their preconceived ideas of the behaviour of model citizens? Are they now in the business of passing judgment?

Eby should be fired by the BCCLA. His personal views as expressed in this video disqualify him from the job.

Open letter to Eby and the BCCLA

I wasn't able to be at the Heart Attack March, so I don't want to comment on people I don't know or events that I wasn't able to actually see take place, but the reaction of people in this video to the suggestion of another person being harmed completely floored me!

Again, I don't know for sure that there were unprovoked attacks on police officers, but to cheer when this is talked about and then to also cheer at the idea of a company CEO being kidnapped and harmed seems to go against what the progressive/left/radical (whatever) movment stands for. I don't have any love for The Bay, nor for being over policed or police intimidation and brutality, but they are still human beings. If we are coming from a position that the actions of these people devalue lives, threaten agency and opress then how can we do the same? It's hypocrisy. To willingly harm someone, or to cheer and applaud the idea of harming somone is to say that their lives have lesser value and importance than ours and that is something I want no part of. I will continue to oppose the ideals of the bay and challenge needless policing, but either our principles of equality are right all of the time or not at all.

Since when does solidarity mean censorship?  The hypocrisy of those who cry 'solidarity' when criticizing Eby and the BCCLA for being vocal about disagreeing with the use of violence against police and by-standers during Saturday's protest is overwhelming.  Solidarity doesn't mean conformity.  

The protests against the Olympics are, in part, about speaking out against suppression of free speech and free assembly in the name of Nationalism and Patriotism during the games.  Over and over the anti-Olympic movement rages against the government, IOC and Vanoc telling us to silence our criticism of the Games because we should all be rallying in support of Canada and dissent shows a lack of solidarity with Canada.  Then when one organization -- an organization that has fought tirelessly to protect the right of dissenters to engage in free speech, assembly, and "peaceful" civil disobedience, comes out and says they disagree with violence -- offers a difference in opinion, people within the movement say they should keep quiet in the name of solidarity.  BCCLA has solidarity with the causes that feed the anti-olympic movement and solidarity with civil liberties.  They don't have to have solidarity with all the tactics used to promote those causes.

Besides, who the hell are all the violent folks to ruin the reputation and distort the message of the rest of the social justice advocates who have been working for the past 4 years.  Where is your solidarity and consensus decision making?

BCCLA has worked so hard to convince the general public that these rights are important and that over-policing and violent policing isn't necessary and protest and dissent are important.  They HAVE to say that violent protest is not what they were talking about all this time.  If they didn't they would lose ALL credibility with the voting public that they rely on to make their work effective.  They are not a radical anarchist collective.  They unapologetically operate within the machine and rely on the trust of the general public in order to push laws and force police and government to remain accountable.  It is a luxury for anarchists to say they don't recognize the authority of the state or the need to convince the public to redirect social spending. Tell that to the people who are hungry and homeless and being beaten by police and denied fair trials right now.  These people need a functioning and effective civil liberties organization that has a sense of legitimacy and public confidence right now.

Just because Eby was criticizing the tactics used by demonstrators who chose to infringe on the civil liberties of the human beings who don police uniforms (I'm talking about those who were just standing there and not physically attacking anyone) and of the human beings who blindly wear canadian clothing and celebrate the olympics, doesn't mean he isn't protecting the civil liberties of those demonstrators as well.  

Despite the fact that the violence made his message a million times more difficult to get across to the public and the government, Eby is still criticizing the riot police for bringing machine guns to control those violent demonstrators.  He is still advocating for due process and fair trials for those people who are alleged to have broken the law.  

He is NOT a criminal defence lawyer.  He is a policy advocate who also happens to be a lawyer.  He is not a defence lawyer any more than a corporate lawyer is a defence lawyer.  He is NOT under any ethical obligation to refrain from commenting on infringements of the civil liberties of the general public just because those civil liberty violations were carried out by people who hate police and the olympics.  The BCCLA is NOT the National Lawyers Guild.  The BCCLA is NOT a collection of criminal defence lawyers who defend clients regardless of the crime.  (Besides, defence lawyers are still allowed to say they disagree with murder even if they are defending a murderer).  The BCCLA is an organization that advocates for policy change from EVERYONE who violates civil liberties in Canada.  

Eby provided a physical space and administrative capacity for a group of independent defence lawyers to provide FREE legal advice to ALL people arrested for olympic related activity...even the allegedly violent demonstrators.  He was not one of those defence lawyers.  He just organized defence lawyers because no one else bothered to do it (although Pivot stepped up eventually as well).  A lot of those violent demonstrators were provided and relied on the free legal advice provided by lawyers who Eby arranged ahead of  time to be on standby to work for free over the weekend.  It's really convenient for you to criticize the BCCLA now while taking advantage of the fact that -- unlike in Quebec City, Seattle and APEC -- the police did not use their guns or pepper spray or the sonic guns (not to say the police aren't still screwing up in other ways)...in large part because of the hard work of the BCCLA.

If you were so confident in your principles and your tactics, you wouldn't feel so threatened by one guy or one organization publicly criticizing your tactics.  

True anarchism loosely means "without rulers".  That doesn't just apply to government.  It means living in a society without reliance on power and control.  Forcefully imposing your will on other people, including through violence and intimidation, is antithetical to the principles of anarchy.  If you had a truly anarchic society, would expect conflict and differences of opinion to be addressed through destruction and violence?  Anarchism means not taking advantage of naturally occurring power imbalances.  That applies to your ability to put on masks and uniforms and make loud noises and destroy property and physically attack and intimidate people who disagree with you.  Eby is right.  You are aping the police.  How embarrassing for you.  Can you really not come up with any better strategies than they use?  Are you not more intelligent and creative than they are?  Chris Shaw is right, actually clogging the streets in a peaceful way would have been SO MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE at causing problems for the Games and it would have been something the BCCLA could have supported and the optics of the police breaking it up would have been so much more powerful.  

If you are confident in your ideas, than CONVINCE people.  Put in the hard work it takes to DEMONSTRATE and ARTICULATE the validity of your ideals.  

Thanks for letting me rant.

Tell that to Eby. He was saying the exact opposite in the video. He was the one who invoked "solidarity" in aid of enforcing conformity.

I never said Eby should keep quiet in the name of "solidarity". His obligation to shut up has nothing to do with solidarity, but rather with ethical responsibility - both his and the BCCLA's. In making his public statements, Eby said his views were his own, and not those of the BCCLA. If that is the case, then the BCCLA should disassociate itself from Eby's remarks by denouncing them and terminating his position with them.

"BCCLA is not the National Lawyers Guild" we are told. That's certainly true. Unlike the BCCLA, the NLG actually has some understanding of its own role and its ethical responsibilities to its clients and potential clients. It never publicly sides with the cops or other forces of repression.

The BCCLA's Legal Observer program was set up to watch and record the actions of the police, for the benefit of the demonstrators. The volunteer legal observers were not the organizers of the demonstrations, nor were they marshals. Their role was not to prescribe, approve or disapprove of the tactics or behaviour of demonstrators, either before or after the fact, nor to police that behaviour. Their role was not, as the poster above suggests, to protect "the civil liberties of the general public" (whatever the fuck that means) against the demonstrators, or to defend "the civil liberties of the human beings who don police uniforms"!! The Legal Observers were not cops. Their role was to gather evidence to support the civil liberties of the demonstrators against any violation by the police.

The BCCLA's Legal Observer training manual was "based on materials prepared by the National Lawyers Guild", according to its front cover and contents page. The function and operation of the Legal Observer team was modeled on the NLG's similar system. The manual required each volunteer observer to be "a calm, independent, objective witness to the activities of security forces". They were expected to report their observations "back to the BCCLA's team of volunteer lawyers who are prepared to go to court to protect people's rights."

So here you have the BCCLA offering volunteer legal services to any demonstrators who were arrested and taken to court, without reservation. The services they were offering were the services of criminal defence lawyers. Information provided to them in that capacity would of necessity be protected by solicitor-client privilege. The BCCLA legal observers were given access to the demonstrations on that understanding.

In announcing to the public that it would offer legal services to the demonstrators the BCCLA did not reserve to itself the right to pass judgment on their actions or to pick and choose which demonstrators they would defend and which ones they would publicly denounce. In fact, the BCCLA has no business publicly commenting on which tactics are acceptable forms of protest and which are not. It is not within their purview as a civil liberties organization, and they are not the tactics police for activists. The organizers of the protests have seen fit to allow for "diversity of tactics", and the BCCLA was aware of that going in. I happen to disagree with the "diversity of tactics" philosophy, but I don't get a veto. Neither does the BCCLA. If there were problems with the way the protests were organized and conducted (and there were), it's none of the BCCLA's goddamn business.

The fact that Eby, a lawyer, is not a criminal defence lawyer is completely irrelevant to his ethical responsibilities as a lawyer and the ethical responsibilities of the BCCLA as the organization through which criminal defence legal services were being offered. They have a professional obligation not to denounce demonstrators to the police or to reveal the content of communications made by demonstrators to the BCCLA lawyers or legal observers who were supposed to be protecting their civil liberties.

I don't know why any protester would want to have anything to do with the BCCLA or its observers after this.

- the American Civil Liberties Union

@Spector,  I understand that it was confusing that the BCCLA took on various roles and offered various services, but those roles and services were distinct and different obligations arose accordingly.

You are very right, the legal observers were organized to monitor police actions around protests.   However, as you mentioned, the organizers of the march asked the observers not to do that.  Eby admits that the observers should have been there to monitor the arrests during Saturday's protest and he shouldn't have listened to the organizers on that point.  If the observers had been there, they would have been there to monitor the police and not the protestors.  The Legal Observers are there to observe the police but they are only one program of many run by the BCCLA.  The BCCLA is there to monitor civil liberty violations perpetrated by more than just police.  They advocate against violations conducted by the military, by corporations, by police, and non-governmental organizations, and by aggressive abusive groups of civilians.  From what I understand, they both condemn the violence of the KKK against civilians and the violence of state and other actors who would suppress the right of members KKK to communicate.  Just because they advocate for groups doesn't mean they are lawyers for that group.

The NLG also organizes legal observers, but that is still different from representing protesters in court.  The NLG also takes on various roles and the guy in that video should have understood that.  Keep in mind, he doesn't speak for all of the NLG.  The Observers are not lawyers and are not acting as lawyers.  The lawyers, both at NLG and with BCCLA simply use legal knowledge to train non-lawyer volunteers how to be WITNESSES to police tactics.

As far as the ethical obligations of lawyers go, those are very context-specific.  The request for observers not to show up was not (as far as I know) given to a lawyer by a client with the understanding of confidentiality and privilege.  Not every conversation a lawyer has with people is protected by solicitor -CLIENT confidentiality.  There was no offer or request (as far as I know) that those conversations be privileged.  What would be privileged would be any conversations between the actual defence lawyers and their individual clients who were charged with offences.

The BCCLA wasn't offering legal defence services to anyone and therefore don't have the obligations associated with lawyers defending clients.  They were offering to put people in contact with independent lawyers who were offering legal services. It does make a difference that Eby is not a defence lawyer acting for any of the demonstrators because that distinction means that he does not have the same ethical obligations toward those demonstrators that a defence lawyer would have.  Lawyers are not prevented by professional ethics from speaking publically or expressing opinons.

Protecting the civil liberties of the general public means that the BCCLA is there to advocate for everyone who needs it, not just protesters.  Other people need to be protected as well.  BCCLA advocates for Afghan detainees, Omar Khadr, people who want to express their love for the olympics, people who want to express their hatred for the olympics, people who want to be free from assault (even those in uniform) and people who want to peacefully assemble on the streets of Vancouver.  They advocate for all of those people and against all people who use power, violence and force to take those liberties away.  You have freedoms protected under the Charter in Canada but that freedom is limited to the extent your actions infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. 

I'm sorry you don't like the message Eby and the BCCLA are communicating, but freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive.

.

Gee, it seems the BCCLA "advocates for" just about everybody. Everybody, that is, except those whose tactics they don't approve of. The latter get denounced in public

Will Eby be testifying in court for the prosecution against black bloc members? What if the Crown subpoenas him to testify that the accused asked the legal observers to stay away so that the police couldn't seize video and written reports from the observers — statements that he has already made in public? Will Eby help to convict the accused by providing this incriminating evidence of possible criminal intent? Is this what the function of a civil liberties organization is?

Read the training manual. That's not what it says. 

Yes, the BCCLA advocates for the CIVIL LIBERTIES of everybody.  Civil liberties, as has been explained many times, does not include the right to assault other people.  Even in protest of something you don't like. I mean really, should Eby also advocate for the right of the guy who assaulted him to do just that just because the guy did so in protest of Eby's comments?  Should he advocate for the right of pro-olympic people to attack anti-olympic protestors because they disagree with their message?  Infringing on the civil liberties of other people (i.e. the right to security of the person) gets denounced in public, whether that infringement is caused by a police officer or a protester.  I just don't understand why that is so hard to grasp.  As mentioned, BCCLA is still advocating for the rights and freedoms of even those who used black bloc tactics.  They are denouncing the machine guns brought by police to protests, the presence of CBSA all over the city, and advocating for the right of those accused of crimes at the protest to access lawyers and fair trials.  They are advocating for the civil liberties of even those people who violated the civil liberties of police and by-standers.

And, just in case your questions are actually serious...No, I'm sure Eby won't testify in court because as a lawyer, he knows that prosecutors would be well aware that his evidence would be useless in court.  I mean, (as far as I know) he doesn't even seem to be requesting that or assisting police prosecute the guy who assaulted him.  Prosecutors would know that he can't prove for sure who sent him the request that Observers stay away (I think I read the request was made by e-mail).  Prosecutors would also know that the only thing he said organizers told him was that there might be people breaking the law at the protest who wouldn't want to be filmed.  So what?  They didn't say THEY were PLANNING on breaking the law, just that some people might.  That is nothing new.  It was on the posters.  He didn't say they told him they were planning on assaulting people.  He said quite clearly that he thought, as was indicated on the posters, that they would be blocking traffic...which is a crime. The organizers clearly told the public civil disobedience (the offence of blocking traffic / mischief) was a possibility.  And they wouldn't want people blocking traffic to be caught on film because they were committing civil disobedience.  Prosecutors would know Eby's evidence would be useless and would provide nothing that wasn't already made known to the public by the posters.   Eby would know this because he is legally trained.  So no, Eby won't help convict the accused because he has no incriminating evidence against any particular accused of criminal intent.  I'm assuming by the fact that you think he could be subpoenaed about this means that you don't actually think the communication with the organizers was confidential because you would realize that lawyers can't be forced to testify about conversations with their clients.

Finally (I promise I won't bother writing any more on this matter...I just wanted to engage people on this issue because they are pretty big accusations of professional misconduct you are making with out any factual or legal basis): as mentioned so many times, the training manual for the Legal Observer program states the mandate is for the Legal Observer program...NOT FOR THE entire BCCLA and all its activities.  The mandate for the Civil Liberties organization is: to preserve, defend, maintain and extend civil liberties and human rights in British Columbia and across Canada.

The BCCLA involvement in this particular protest was specifically to defend the civil rights of demonstrators - not the so-called civil rights of the cops, not the civil rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, not the civil rights of the whole world in general.

They distributed among the demonstrators beforehand a BCCLA phone number they could call if they got arrested, and they promised legal assistance. They did not make the same offer to anyone else. This created a special relationship between the BCCLA and the demonstrators. The BCCLA was representing itself as legal counsel to the demonstrators as a whole.

In this circumstance, to then turn around and say we're not going to defend you because we don't like your tactics and moreover publicly denounce those who use those tactics is unethical and unprofessional.

Why do you let the BCCLA draw the line on what is acceptable or unacceptable tactics? That's not their job.

Suppose you got shoved hard by a cop on the next demonstration and you shoved back and were immediately set upon by five other cops who beat you, gassed you, and dragged you off to prison. The media and the cops unanimously agree that the police were simply subduing a violent demonstrator. The BCCLA chimes in and says we don't approve of such tactics, and we're not going to defend the accused person. This is what happens when you let the BCCLA become the activist police.

Suppose David Eby disapproved of the tactic of blocking the Olympic torch run, as a lot of otherwise "progressive" people did. Would it be acceptable for him to publicly denounce those who forced the torch run to be re-routed and refuse to stand up for the civil liberties of the protestors? Would you be cheerleading for the "civil liberties" of the torch-bearers and VANOC instead?

Suppose you have a lawyer who tells you, if you ever get in trouble with the law, give me a call. One day you find yourself arrested and charged with conspiracy to blow up the Legislature or something, but when you call this lawyer he says "I don't approve of what you are alleged to have done, so I'm not going to defend you. And moreover, I'm going to make public statements to tell everybody how disgusted I am with you. And I'm going to mention to the public that you called me the day before the alleged incident and told me that I should stay away from the Legislature the next day." Your lawyer would be disbarred, and rightly so. 

There are principles involved here - principles that must be applied evenly, regardless of whether the BCCLA or you or anyone else approves or disapproves of what the accused person is alleged to have done.

@Spector, I am clearly unable to explain to you the difference between a person's individual lawyer and a policy advocate.  Perhaps someone more articulate than myself can explain in different words the fact that BCCLA was not involved in Saturdays protest at all, not to mention to specifically defend protesters.  You seem unable to accept that an organization can take on different roles in different situations.  You clearly still do not understand the meaning of civil liberties, the purpose of a civil liberties organization and the distinction between such an organization and a criminal defence lawyer.  I hope one day someone can explain it to you because I clearly am unable.  You can't seem to accept the fact that the BCCLA-organized legal response team was still available to black bloc protestors when they were arrested and that they were provided legal assistance.  You can't seem to see the difference between supporting a message and not supporting a violent and illegal tactic to convey that message...or the difference between non-violent civil disobedience and violent criminal behaviour.   I hope, for your safety, you never disagree with someone who shares your approach to conflict.

Wait a minute - you're telling me that the BCCLA has provided free legal services to the arrested black bloc members? And at the same time the executive director of that organization has publicy denounced the very people they are defending?

If that's true, then Eby's public comments are even more despicable than I thought.

To say that "BCCLA was not involved in Saturdays protest at all" is nonsense. They specifically committed their resources to the protection of the demonstrators against the police. Although the legal observers were instructed to act in an impartial manner, they and the BCCLA were not impartial, nor should they be - they were supposed to be on the side of the demonstrators. They were not there to protect the police against the demonstrators. They were not there to protect the Hudson's Bay Company, or their insurance company, who will pay to fix any damage. They were there for the demonstrators. Deny it all you wish, but it's true.

I hope, for your safety, you never have to rely on the BCCLA to defend your civil liberties.

Wow...

The 'Us or Them' mentality that prevails in this comment thread is horrific. For future reference, guys, you shouldn't be taking notes from Bush's speeches...

Brian Lynchehaun

I agree with you, Brian. Especially crap like this:

George W. couldn't have said it any better.

As a long-time resident of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, I've never been impressed by David Eby.  A lot of people have made a meal out of the problems associated with this historic and troubled neighborhood, but most of them have put in a few years in the trenches before grabbing for the political brass ring, accepting high profile jobs, being showered with (mostly positive or neutral media) attention, and, in general, selling out at every opportunity.  And believe or not, there are a few people (too few) who have worked hard to make a positive difference, and you or I will probably never learn their names, as they shun the spotlight.  The ink was barely dry on Eby's Bachelor of Law degree  when he came out West from Ontario to make his mark on Vancouver, with the injustices rife in the DTES as his rasion d'etre.  He received a lot of media attention for filing a report on police brutality.  This was awesome, because it was the first time someone with real credibility had ever catalogued the sins of the cops in the DTES effectively - that is, someone tall, pale, male, middle class and new to the city!.  Now this was someone the media and the people could gravitate to....he seemed almost like a messiah.  But that was only the first step for Eby.  He had barely lived two or three years in Vancouver when he was persuaded to go for the big-time by the honchos behind the "Friends of Larry Campbell".  People like Joel Solomon (the brains behind the current mayor's election) took an instant liking to Eby, and put him forward as a candidate for Vision Vancouver.  I'm sure Solomon liked what he say in Eby - a grasping opportunist with a messiah complex that would stroke the consciences of liberal voters who disliked the NPA yet were terrifed of losing the value of their overpriced Vancouver real estate.  When asked why he ran for a party that was heavily beholden to developers and promising to up the police budget significantly, Eby made no bones about his intentions:  He wanted to be on the winning team.  Vision were going to win - and he was going to one of the winners.  Period.  When he was bested at the Vision nomination meeting by two long-time local activists from Vancouver's significant South Asian population, he sulked hard and visibly.  He was entitled to the brass ring, and was robbed due to "unethical behaviour".  He also made an outrageously patronizing statement about have to do some rounds in the ethnic communities next time.   By this time, Eby was being championed by local pundits as a poster boy for change, and his exclusion from the Vision slate as a grave injustice that could only be remedied by appointing him to high-profile committees such as HEAT, effectively by-passing those who had been the trenches for far longer.  But this was to be become a repeating theme in Eby's career trajectory.  Not putting in the time, getting the job ahead of others in line.  His appointment of the director of the BCCLA is a classic case in point.  Even though he spent a very brief time working for the organization (perhaps articling) and a similarly brief time as a practising lawyer, he was hired in the top spot thanks to those who wanted to benefit from his almost magical ability to attract microphones and television cameras (and funds to the cause).  I knew at the time that the BCCLA would rue its decision one day.  Now that he has shown he has no respect for the legal profession he belongs to, and doesn't know when to draw the line when making public statements to the media as the head of the BCCLA (can you imagine Michael Vonn being this self-aggrandizing and unprincipled?), maybe they'll do some much-needed soul searching about why taking on such a shameless opportunist was not such a great idea.  No one, and I mean no one, in the legal profession can be thinking very highly of his recent conduct.  It doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum we're taking about.  Oh, Eby's point man on the BCCLA Board of Govermors, Jason Gratl, will trash talk the critics in his usual juvenile manner, but even a hypocrite like him has never put on such a public show of incompetence and committed such an obvious breach of the standards all lawyers must uphold, as a minimum, to prevent bringing dishonour to their profession.  As for what I think of the Black Bloc - I think they need to bathe far more often, and they need to get non-tainted legal representation.  I'd say most lawyers are more  competent and ethical than Eby, so this shouldn't be too difficult.  His real calling in life appears to be carpetbagging his way to the top.  Here's hoping he never makes it.

rootabega sounds like a long term stalker of David Eby, whether or not he is a resident of the Downtown Eastside (I guess that give you extra creds??). As far as I'm concerned, the man did the right thing. His job is protect civil liberties, not those who would quash that space for others. 

I am a long-time observer of civic politics from the left side of the spectrum.