Royal Bank firebombed in Ottawa - part 5

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
Joey Ramone

Right you are.  I was thinking of a similar article Judy wrote about a year ago about the tactics of the Black Bloc.  Both are excellent articles and reflect my thinking.

Unionist

Is this thread going to be reduced to whether an accused's family and friends should offer them support or not?

Do we usually issue statements appealing to family and friends?

Would it be possible to address the real issues here - please?

Unionist

Well, their COMMUNITY should support them, but also CONDEMN the arson of which they stand accused, and DEMAND that the police find the true culprits, so that JUSTICE can be done.

Cytizen H

MAKING POINTS LOUDLY

SparkyOne

Michelle wrote:

SparkyOne, I don't think the callout is asking for people to support "the bombers".  They're asking people to support the people being ACCUSED of doing the bombing.  I didn't see support for the bombing in that callout, nor did I see them say that the three people accused did the bombing.

I shouldn't have said the bombers. I should have said the accused, my bad.  My problem is the reason for supporting the accused seems very suspect to me thats all. Especially considering when people have expressed their beleifs that "targeted destrtuction against symbolic items" isn't really that bad of a thing. That makes it feel like people are supporting more than just someones legal rights or trip through the justice system.

 

Unionist

Agreed, Yiwah. No one has to speak out on this issue, because whoever did this deed did so anonymously and divorced from any real organization or movement. We are not responsible for their acts.

What we can, however, expect is that no activist should support it. Then the dynamic changes rather dramatically.

 

 

Yiwah

Unionist wrote:

Agreed, Yiwah. No one has to speak out on this issue, because whoever did this deed did so anonymously and divorced from any real organization or movement. We are not responsible for their acts.

What we can, however, expect is that no activist should support it. Then the dynamic changes rather dramatically.

 

 

Indeed it does, because this approach refuses to assume support based on silence, and rather affirms that support is a positive action and must actually be stated.

Yiwah

Activists are not a group of people regulated by legislation and a professional association, guided by a uniform policy and administrative oversight. They are an extremely diverse group of people who do not ever claim to come together as a monolithic entity.  While one can reasonably criticise the structures of say, the RCMP, when 'rotten apples' make them look bad precisely because they DO fit all of the above criteria, it is NOT reasonable to make sweeping generalisations about activists. 

I will not apologise for the actions of people I don't even know.  For all I know, they are paid agents of the state, because the state is the primary beneficiary of this action. I am not going to spend my time denouncing this event, I am going to focus on the work I do.  No one has permission to take my silence ( ignoring my lack of connections with the perpetrators of this bombing) as some sort of implicit approval, period.

Unionist

Cytizen H wrote:

 My back gets up immediately when people start telling me what I, or anyone, "should" be doing.

Really. That doesn't stop you from telling others what they "should" be doing:

Cytizen H, to adharden, wrote:
I think I've said this before, but I think it is great that you advocate for non-violence and I hope you continue to do it. As long as you do it without dragging other activists through the muck.

No one has told you to condemn the arsonists, whoever they were. Why are you so concerned when others choose to "drag them through the muck"?

Yiwah

Seems like Cytizen H is asking those condemning the violent protestors (or whoever they were) to not assign blame to non-violent protestors.  The word "OTHER" in that sentence seems very clear.

Slumberjack

Papal Bull wrote:
Violence is that precarious point between survival and...not-surviving.

Earth calling Papal Bull.

Papal Bull

does anyone have information on non-saturday/sunday events that would be happy to have some people come out and support them? everything i've gotten has been geared towards this weekend (i work)\

 

and slumberjack, whatchoo talkin' bout?

krishna krishna's picture

(i am not a spokesperson for Ottawa Movement Defense but do support its work)

--

[Please forward widely]

Ottawa Movement Defense

RBC FIREBOMBING ARRESTS UPDATE

Monday, June 21st, 2010

This email contains the most current information about the individuals arrested in relation to the May 18th firebombing of a Royal Bank of Canada branch in Ottawa, Ontario.

PLEASE NOTE: The media has been incorrectly reporting the charges.  Claude Haridge is only charged with mischief in relation to an event
several months prior to the RBC fire, and improper storage of ammunition.

============
CONTENTS
============

1. Update on Court Proceedings
2. Note of Caution to Friends and Supporters
3. Visiting Roger, Matt, and Claude at OCDC
4. Donating to Legal Fund
5. Donating via Pay Pal
6. Media Inquiries and General Contact Information

==================================
1. UPDATE ON COURT PROCEEDINGS
==================================

All 3 accused appeared via video today, as the lawyers work to secure bail hearings at the soonest opportunity.

Please note that some media outlets are consistently incorrectly reporting Claude’s charges. Claude is not currently being charged with any offences directly related to the alleged firebombing of the RBC Branch on May 18th, 2010.

At the present time, Claude is has two charges: improper and handling of ammunition, and a mischief charge for an unrelated event that took place several months prior to the RBC event in May.

Additional charges linking the 3 accused may be laid at some time in the future, but at this point it appears Claude’s case will be argued separately from that of Roger and Matt.

Claude will appear via video on Wednesday, June 23rd at 1:30pm in courtroom #6 to set a date for a bail hearing.

We are not calling for court support for Claude’s video appearance on Wednesday, June 23rd, though anyone is welcome to attend.

Roger Clement will appear via video again tomorrow at 1:30pm in Courtroom #6 to set a date for his bail hearing, which may occur the following day or later in the week. His legal counsel has requested a full day to conduct bail proceedings.

We are not calling for court support for Roger’s video appearance on Tuesday, June 22nd, though anyone is welcome to attend.

Matt Morgan-Brown’s bail hearing has been held over until Monday, June 28th. Further details will follow later in the week.

The names and charges, at this point, of the 3 individuals are:

Roger Clement, of Ottawa, charged with arson causing damage, possession of incendiary material, using explosives with intent to cause property damage, and mischief.

Mathew Morgan-Brown, of Ottawa, charged with arson, arson causing damage, possession of incendiary material, using explosives with intent to cause property damage, and mischief.

Claude Haridge, of Ottawa, careless storage and handling of ammunition, and mischief.

===============================================
2. NOTE OF CAUTION TO FRIENDS AND SUPPORTERS
===============================================

Please be careful when discussing this situation publicly, including online and to the media, as incautious statements may compromise the ability of the accused to defend themselves in court.

Now that this matter is before the courts, we need to ensure the Crown is able to base its case only on substantive evidence, rather than relying on sensational or incautious public comments.

In particular, IT IS THE POSITION OF OTTAWA MOVEMENT DEFENSE THAT SPEAKING VOLUNTARILY TO THE POLICE WILL PREJUDICE THE DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED AND MAKE THEIR COURT PROCEEDINGS MORE DIFFICULT.

ANY STATEMENT MADE TO THE POLICE OR MEDIA CAN BE USED AGAINST THE ACCUSED, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS HYPOTHETICAL OR BASED ON DISTORTED INFORMATION.

No matter how friendly or intimidating police may appear, or how clever you think you might be in getting information out of them, nothing good can come of voluntarily talking to the police.

If police contact you, please let us know as soon as possible at [email protected]

========================================
3. VISITING ROGER, MATT, & CLAUDE AT OCDC
========================================

Roger, Matt and Claude are all able to meet with visitors at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre. Paying them a visit is a tangible and important way to provide support to the three individuals while they are incarcerated.

We ask that anyone planning a visit to the prison let us know in advance when you will attend. We can let you know if there are any planned visits that day by family members or close friends, which we encourage you to avoid conflicting with.

Visitors require a piece of photo ID with a current address. Visits usually last about 15 minutes.

Please email us at [email protected] for more details or to let us know if you’re planning on attending.

==============================
4. DONATING TO THE LEGAL FUND
==============================

Right now, financial support is crucial for three reasons. The first is that, while it is unclear at this time what possible bail conditions the Crown may ask for, or even if they will consent to releasing the 3 arrestees, we may need to put forward a significant amount of money for bail. We're very grateful to everyone that has contributed already. But we may need a considerable amount more.

Unfortunately, as bail conditions weren't discussed at all in court today, we are unable to provide more specific information at this time.

The second reason is that we must begin fundraising ongoing legal and support costs, which will be may be significant. All indications are that this could be a lengthy and involved proceeding and, while we can't speculate at this time where it will end up, a trial could be a year or more away. In addition the costs of paying the legal team, there are related support costs accrued by Ottawa Movement Defense.  These costs include such things as  maintaining a cell phone dedicated to calls from prison, postage, etc.

If you are able to donate any money, please contact us the Pay Pal account (described below) or send a check addressed to Ottawa Movement Defense at the address listed below.

When donating money, please indicate if you would like to contribute to bail, legal costs, or both.

========================
5. DONATING VIA PAY PAL
========================

To donate to the legal defense fund via PayPal, please follow the below instructions:

  1. Go to http://www.paypal.com/sendmoney
  2. Type in [email protected] in the "To" box.
  3. Type in your email address in the "From" box
  4. Type in Amount and find CAD (Can Dollars) in the menu to the right.
  5. Click on the "Personal" Tab and check the button "Gift".
  6. Click "Continue".
  7. The next page will ask you to either Log In to your paypal account or sign up for an account. If you sign up for an account, you can link up your account to your credit card or bank account. 
  8. For all transactions, there is a charge of 2.2% of the amount + $0.30. You can decide whether you will pay this amount or the Ottawa Movement Defense (in which case this amount is deducted from the amount you are giving).

===================================================
6. MEDIA INQUIRIES AND GENERAL CONTACT INFORMATION
===================================================

You can reach Ottawa Movement Defense at:

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 613 304 8870

Mailing Address:
Ottawa Movement Defense
207 Bank Street
Suite 453
Ottawa, ON
K2P 2N2

thorin_bane

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1188139.html

Does this sound too cute? Here’s the inevitable other side of the story. The banks were actually "bailed out" to the tune of $125 billion just before and after the 2008 election — in the form of a massive purchase of questionable mortgages and other "rotten paper," in the words of one economist, held by them. This was done through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, a federal agency. The taxpayer is now on the hook for these mortgages, 40 per cent of which are considered at risk, with more to come if interest rates rise and the economy dips again.

Regardless of side this is the real problem going on in Canada. Very goood article short and worth the read at the link.

Unionist

That's actually quite an amazing story. Thanks, thorin.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Just as long as Karla Homolka doesn't get a pardon, is all....

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

How about some support for Syd Ryan?

===================================================

Labour leader Sid Ryan defended a statement he made this week regarding the possible use of police agents provocateurs that prompted a call for his resignation.

Ryan, the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, told the Canadian Press Thursday he hoped the Integrated Security Unit, in charge of securing the G8 and G20 summits, wouldn’t plant cops disguised as protesters to incite violence.

That comment prompted a strong reaction from Toronto Police Association president Mike McCormack, who’s called for Ryan’s resignation. He described Ryan’s statement as “idiotic, irresponsible and inflammatory.”

“It’s obviously a cheap attempt at publicity," McCormack said. "He should be writing fiction because obviously he isn’t dealing with reality. At the very least he should apologize to Toronto’s finest for his groundless attack.”

Ryan reiterated his concern about agents provocateurs Thursday evening.

"These concerns are far from 'groundless,' as suggested by Toronto Police Association President Mike McCormack," Ryan said in a statement. "The fact is there have been numerous documented cases of police infiltration of demonstrations at protests around the world, including Canada."

Quebec provincial police admitted they placed three undercover officers among protesters at the North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que. in Aug. 2007 (pictured above), but denied they were there to incite violence.

An online video, which Ryan cited in his release, shows one of the officers holding a rock. Protesters are seen on the video calling them out and demanding they remove their masks.

See the video here

"I am very concerned that there could be political pressure from the federal Conservative government to use police to provoke a situation that will lead to arrests-purely to justify the enormous security costs of the G20 Summit," Ryan said. "And frankly, that should be a concern for the police union as well."

The Canadian Labour Congress and the Ontario Federation of Labour will be marching on June 26. The groups claim the demonstration will be the largest of the G20.

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/topic/g20/article/79340--sid-ryan...

Cueball Cueball's picture

I love that video. The guy sounds just like Jimmy Stewart.

mellian mellian's picture

Violence of any sort or form is never justified, no matter which era in history or future. Firebombing was stupid, not just because of the violence itself, but negatively colors whatever message they tried to send out. Anyone that condemns violence by the police, military, government, and such while not condemning violence that of other activists or/and while committing violence themselves are hypocrites to the highest degree. It is even worse for anyone or any groups to take advantage of peaceful protest for their own violence disguised as "diversity of tactics". No justification, no excuse.

Unionist

Cueball wrote:
I love that video. The guy sounds just like Jimmy Stewart.

"Jimmy Stewart" is Dave Coles, national president of the CEP (Communications, Energy, and Paperworkers union).

It's a video that should be shown to every kid in school.

 

Yiwah

I agree, Unionist.  So the average person will stop thinking paranoia fuels the talk of agent provocateurs. 

It reminds me of when the offices of a particular Edmonton activist group were broken into, and all the computers stolen.  Truly paranoid to believe it was done by the police, no doubt, despite the fact that the computers in question were so old to really be of no street value. So they were full of files on the activities of the group, but who would want those?

 

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

Brother Dave Coles is one of many, many, many, many trade unionists in this country who know all about police provocateurs. Sometimes it cannot be spoken about. That it is out in the open and has been so since the Montebello Keystone Kops stupidity is actually a good thing.

Bully for Syd Ryan.

SparkyOne

Yiwah wrote:

I agree, Unionist.  So the average person will stop thinking paranoia fuels the talk of agent provocateurs. 

It reminds me of when the offices of a particular Edmonton activist group were broken into, and all the computers stolen.  Truly paranoid to believe it was done by the police, no doubt, despite the fact that the computers in question were so old to really be of no street value. So they were full of files on the activities of the group, but who would want those?

 

Or in a year from now we could be saying it reminds me of that time right before the G20  last year when a couple "activists" firebombed the RBC bank and the police "discovered" them right before and tried to justify all the security.

Unionist

[url=http://toronto.mediacoop.ca/blog/jesse-freeston/3735]Sacco and Vanzetti in Ottawa: How Media and Police are Politicizing the RBC Arson Case[/url]

 

thorin_bane

Unionist wrote:

[url=http://toronto.mediacoop.ca/blog/jesse-freeston/3735]Sacco and Vanzetti in Ottawa: How Media and Police are Politicizing the RBC Arson Case[/url]

 

Good catch.

Unionist

The author of the Sacco & Vanzetti article - Jesse Freeston - was attacked by the fascist cops, punched twice in the face, and had his microphone stolen - despite wearing clear media identification. It's probably already been posted, but well worth watching again - [url=http://toronto.mediacoop.ca/video/police-attack-journalists-publics-righ... it is.[/url]

 

adharden

Some more fuel for discussion, and I've created a forum topic with the same title:

Respecting the police: A fault line for activists

Merowe

adharden wrote:

Some more fuel for discussion, and I've created a forum topic with the same title:

Respecting the police: A fault line for activists

Respect has to be earned.

I read the blog article. The blarticle.

Do you also collect Barbies?

Unionist

adharden wrote:

Some more fuel for discussion, and I've created a forum topic with the same title:

Respecting the police: A fault line for activists

You know, adharden, you could try to respect the topics of these threads, for starters. What occasioned your post here? That I called the police who attacked protesters "fascists"? How about if I change that to "shitheads"? Would that be more to your liking?

You can preach nonviolence. But preaching respect for police - during these days - is inappropriate in this particular thread, without commenting on how interesting this topic might be elsewhere.

adharden

:)   quite right - I put this in the protest tactics thread - better suited there... 

Daedalus Daedalus's picture

Slumberjack wrote:

Well, if it's 'sometimes'...as you say, sometimes where violent resistance, as difficult as it is to accept, becomes necessary, who gets to determine when?  A central committee?  Personally I don't see that we have any right to condemn what others feel is necessary and justified self defence.

What right do you have to say I can't condemn an act of violence? Why is verbal condemnation judged wrongful, but an act of violence something we cannot judge? Heaven forbid I condemn the arsonists ... but apparently I have your consent to burn their things.

This was no private affair that we must mind our own business about, but a public and political action that invites analysis by its very nature, and it is not possible (or rather not desirable) to invite only praise and exclude criticism of a political action.

And in answer to your question, people can freely decide for themselves what they will condemn. That's basically the whole idea behind real democracy.

Cytizen H

.

Cytizen H

.

Cytizen H

.

Cytizen H

.

Cytizen H

.

 

Cytizen H

.

Cytizen H

.

Cytizen H

.

Cytizen H

.

Cytizen H

.

Daedalus Daedalus's picture

mellian wrote:

Violence of any sort or form is never justified, no matter which era in history or future.

 

Never mind that I don't agree with this, but destroying an object isn't true violence; it's vandalism. In no way is it comparable to injuring a human being. It's not even remotely similar.

Slumberjack

Daedalus wrote:
What right do you have to say I can't condemn an act of violence? Why is verbal condemnation judged wrongful, but an act of violence something we cannot judge? Heaven forbid I condemn the arsonists ... but apparently I have your consent to burn their things.

If satisfaction comes at the price of harmoniously aligning oneself through condemnation with the mainstream media, the police, the government, the right wing, the muddy center etc, its fairly easy in my view to take issue with that sort of congenial logic. Just when you think the order of things has all the help it requires, they're always willing to make use of other people‘s misdirected outrage.

Daedalus Daedalus's picture

Slumberjack wrote:
If satisfaction comes at the price of harmoniously aligning oneself through condemnation with the mainstream media, the police, the government, the right wing, the muddy center etc, its fairly easy in my view to take issue with that sort of congenial logic.

 

It's got nothing to do with "aligning oneself" with the government, media, et al. Yes, they happen to be criticize it too. We both share some criticisms. Rape, for instance, is widely criticized by government, media, and myself.

What you're doing here is equivalent to saying I'm "aligning" myself with Hitler because we both support heliocentrism. It's absurd. I'm not going to form my opinions based on maximum contrariness with government etc. That would give them the power to determine my opinions.

 

One of the most detestable practices of many ideologies and worldviews is, in my opinion, their habit of coming to the defense of monsters who "align" with them. Plain old black and white vision of the world, the dualistic fantasy of the deluded True Believer, whose political beliefs are no more profound than something akin to a sports fan. My team, my side, "align" etc. George Bush expressed more or less the same sentiments as you have, and despite being a moron, did so much more succinctly: "You're either with us or you're against us".

When I hear people defending destructive or violent acts with such logic, I always choose the latter. There are valid arguments for such things in certain circumstances, but such logic is characteristic of something entirely different; it's a harbinger of zealotry.

Unionist

SJ, I do admire your consistency and persistence. Most of those on this board who questioned the condemnation of the RBC fire-bombing have grown quieter since the G20 events.

As for "harmonizing" with the media, let me know when the media publish editorials condemning the assholes (either RBC or burning cop car variety) for serving the interests of Stephen Harper. A link will do, thanks very much.

 

Slumberjack

A few questions Daedalus if you please. Do you agree with the notion that people have a right to resistance against that which seeks either through intent or through consequence to subjugate or render one and all extinct? Do you similarly condemn groups around the world who reach the conclusion that resistance against colonialism and genocidal exploitation is the only option remaining to them? And if not, why do you hesitate to extend the same consideration to North Americans and Europeans? What is it about 'us' that leads you to believe the last resort path chosen by so many emancipated victims of corporatism in other places is inappropriate in our circumstances? Why cheer others in their struggles, in their life or death conflagrations, while reserving ones condemnation for the domestic context? Is it not the same system that we exist under here which spreads its destructive tentacles everywhere while doing so in our name? Is solidarity-lite with millions upon millions of victims around the world to be our perpetual feeble answer to their misery at the hands of those who purport to represent us, and who routinely gather in our midst to plot further destruction? How does an insurrection begin, as a mass movement, or as a series of small scale endeavours that eventually coalesces through resonance into an indestructible movement?

Unionist

I'll answer for Daedalus (unless it's a private conversation, in which case pardon me for eavesdropping).

How "groups around the world" fight for their liberation is their business. That's why I support the insurgency in Afghanistan against the invaders and their puppets. If the movement in Afghanistan decides (for example) to wipe out the suicide bombers in its midst, or stop using IEDs, or go over to airstrikes of their own, etc., that is their choice and will not affect my support.

When it comes to Canada, however, I have a say. It's my country, see. Any asshole (collecting an honorarium from the cops, or doing it for free) who tries to destroy our movements for liberation by individual acts of sabotage must be dealt with by our movement, or else we will get what we deserve.

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
SJ, I do admire your consistency and persistence. Most of those on this board who questioned the condemnation of the RBC fire-bombing have grown quieter since the G20 events.

Perhaps they've been arrested, who knows. Either that, or we'd have to suspect that a certain level of intimidation has taken hold as a result of realizing that the state would go out of their way to stage a few street level skits with which to entertain themselves, but primarily to file the edges from anything that might potentially cause disruption, however minor. It's worked wonderfully hasn't it?

Unionist

Where is the FFFC when we need them most!?

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
It's my country, see.

I see.  So you've taken on the role of decider, its your country after all, the entire sea to sea landmass and everyone in it.  I hope you don't take offense then if I understand those who choose not to listen to you.

Pages

Topic locked