We met Sunday, August 19, 2007. I was part of the popular education brigades that were organized by the Peoples’ Global Action of Montreal in an effort to explain to folks living in the Montebello area the reasons for our opposition to the proposed Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which has been the subject of an ongoing “dialogue” between Canadian, American and Mexican leaders since 2005.

When I first approached you, you expressed fear that we, the demonstrators, would damage your village. You told me about the “information” sessions that were organized in the area over the past few weeks by the police. You explained that you were shown clips of urban riots by police who spent time justifying the security measures that were being taken to protect you. Business owners were told to barricade their buildings and to refuse access to demonstrators. You shared your frustration at having had your phone lines cut several times per day over the past few weeks. “No,” you answered, when I asked if they had told you about the issues associated with the “dialogue.”

Once the ice was broken, we were able to discuss these issues. Together, we put the SPP in context, situating it within a much larger project—one heralded by the leaders of this world for over 30 years. We noted that, overall, this project is about the (re)colonization of the commons and of peoples all over the globe.

We talked about local agriculture, biodiversity and food sovereignty—all threatened by transnational corporations benefiting from the liberalization of trade. We connected on the destruction of the forests and farming territories for mining and oil extraction, most often on indigenous lands.

We spoke of local businesses forced to close their doors, unable to compete with big chains like Wal-Mart. We discussed precarious work conditions: peasants and indigenous peoples in the Global South, forced to transform their subsistence farms into cash crops for export in order to survive. We spoke of women in these countries who leave their families behind—hoping to better support their children—who end up working in sweatshops in the free trade zones on the U.S. border; of those who take the chance to come to Québec, and end up working as domestics in slave-like conditions under their employerâe(TM)s roofs.

We talked of the private sector’s insidious infiltration of public services and utilities, a process often facilitated by international agreements. You were surprised to learn that once health, education, water and electricity are privatized—whether in whole or in part—any attempts to ‘turn back the clock’ would cost a fortune given that these agreements give corporations the right to sue governments for lost profits.

We agreed that such a neo-liberal program could not be furthered without control—control of people’s movement, of opposition, of the circulation of information. If everyone was aware of the devastating consequences of these “dialogues,” the leaders would be faced with a popular revolt. As we parted, we concluded that the “information” sessions that had been organized in your villages were part of a process intended to manufacture a climate of fear—a climate needed to push through hidden agendas.

At this point, many of you wished me good luck and told me to take care.

Today I am writing to follow-up on our discussions. Because what you saw on television and in the newspapers does not reflect my experience. After having spent the night in a tent in the backyard of a local sympathizer, I spent much of my afternoon the next day face to face with the riot squad, 30 feet from the doors of the Château Montebello. I saw thousands of people: families, children, seniors, punks, refugees, people from all over Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. I saw banners of all colours and stripes adorned with all kinds of creative messages. I heard speeches and music, I saw theatre.

I participated in attempts to push back the lines of riot police. I attempted to converse with the man, the woman, behind the shield, the mask, the helmet, the warrior gear. I tried hard to make them realize that we were all human beings, divided by our leaders. I spoke of the consequences of the SPP and I explained that by repressing us, they were partners in crime with those who were planning behind closed doors. Some were defiant—others had fear in their eyes. One officer of the Sûreté du Québec admitted that yes, he was âeoean accomplice to the rich and the fascistsâe (a slogan that was chanted during the demonstration), but that it was worth the $100 an hour he was getting paid.

Around 6:00 p.m., we were listening to the last of the day’s speeches—thank you to the people of Montebello who opened up their village to us. Yes, we managed to express our opposition to the SPP. No, the struggle is not over. We felt energized and encouraged about continuing to mobilize in our communities and workplaces.

It was at this point, when the demonstration was clearly over and the crowd had begun to disperse, that a police officer by my side suddenly shot a projectile of tear gas at a protester beside me who was speaking in a megaphone. The crowd, panicked, moved back. My eyes were burning, my nose was running, my skin burned. The couple of rocks thrown out of the crowd bounced off the well-padded police officers; but we, the protesters, protected with little more than our lemon-soaked kerchiefs, are still suffering today from the brutality committed in the name of “security and prosperity.”

Why did police forces start shooting when the demonstration was over? It seems to me the only plausible explanation is that they needed to provoke a riot, knowing of course that these would be the images that would be relayed by the media instead of accurate information underlying the issues. These are the images that would feed the climate of fear, create a feeling of insecurity, turn you against me, even though we had managed, the previous day, to pierce through the barrier of distrust, and plant a seed of revolt. But we will not be fooled. We know that police repression and disinformation are tactics that are used consciously by those who “govern us” and those who “inform us” in an effort to demobilize us, to divide us, to scare us. That is how they think they will shut us up and force us to accept their policies.

As for me, you will happy to hear that I am now more motivated to continue the struggle. But at the next confrontation, I will have a gas mask.

Hoping that one day we will be together in struggle, shoulder to shoulder,

Anna Kruzynski