Speaking out against the Olympics can get you barred from the United States, according to a prominent activist. Gord Hill claims that’s what happened after the CBC carried his controversial views on Games-time disruption earlier this month.
“I can’t be charged for my thoughts or my views,” Hill said today. “Yet I can be harassed and denied entry into the United States.”
In mid-October, Hill told a CBC reporter he’d sympathize with the bombing of power lines. He supports most Games-time disruptions, including attacks on energy infrastructure.
But he wouldn’t actually plant bombs. And the Olympics Resistance Network member told the Tyee his group has never called for such a tactic.
On October 17, two intelligence officers from the 2010 Integrated Security Unit left business cards in his mailbox, Hill said. He wasn’t home. That day he’d left with a friend for an anti-Olympics workshop in Seattle.
At the border, American guards denied Hill and his friend entry. The activist had tried to bring 15-20 anti-Olympics t-shirts into the US without the proper merchandise documents.
On October 20, Hill said he was approached by two intelligence officers near the intersection of Pender St. and Columbia St. They questioned him about his CBC comments. Then one officer brought up the failed border crossing three days earlier.
“He told me I would never be allowed in the States again,” Hill said.
The activist was charged and convicted with mischief for storming the unveiling of the Olympic countdown clock in 2007. Yet in the three or four times he’s travelled to the U.S. since, that’s never been an issue, Hill said.
Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security Unit spokesperson Mike Cote couldn’t confirm intelligence officers had approached Hill on the 20th. But it’s definitely possible, given the nature of the activist’s comments.
“I think it’s safe to say that I wouldn’t be surprised if the ISU personnel do pay Mr. Hill a visit to determine what – if any – his intentions are in terms of threatening the games,” he said.
But claims that an officer told Hill he’d been barred from the U.S. carry little weight, Cote said. The ISU doesn’t have the jurisdiction to stop American agencies from letting certain people across the border, he said.
And information about Hill has not been shared with the U.S., Cote added.
“Mr Hill made comments that were concerning to us,” he said. “But that’s all they were. They were words. Mr. Hill is entitled to his opinion.”
A spokesperson for US Customs and Border Protection said security intelligence is regularly shared between Canada and the U.S.
“We do that on an ongoing basis,” Mike Milne said. “It certainly would be applicable during the Games as well.”
If a certain person is deemed a threat by Canadian authorities, American border guards could be alerted. And that person could be denied access to the U.S.
“There are a number of people on any daily basis that are flagged,” Milne said.
Geoff Dembicki reports for the Tyee.
8
Login or register to post comments
Jeffrey J.
2 years ago
Secret lists, secret police.
The really pernicious aspect of authoritian Western regimes is how many laws they pass. 1930's Italy and Germany made extensive use of carefully crafted legislation. The US, now one of the most undemocratic of states, passed law after law after law to spy on citizens, breach the constitution, create secret lists and detain people without warrant.
BC has jumped right into the melee, passing its own unconstituional laws and statutes. We have moved from Rule of Law to Rule by Law, with the use of police, enforcement agencies and muscle. Just like the others.
Such laws also take significant cooperation with the legal community, judges and the courts. Gandhi was highly critical of the legal community in India when it supported unjust English laws and called upon lawyers and judges to boycott Indian courthouses. Some joined him. And in the end, Gandhi's direct action won.
Citizens who want to publicly oppose the Olympics are examples of the very essence of what the western victory of WWII was supposed to protect. And BC's elites and corporations appear to have almost no insight into our history. And we have instructed our security forces to do what they think best, without democratic oversight. Now we leave it to enforcement officers to explain to us why we are losing our civil liberties.
A disturbing trend that I fear will grow rapidly if not checked by a more intelligent government.
Wilfride Laurier
2 years ago
Can't take the punishment?
The man is a convicted felon. He is therefore not admissible to the USA. They do not admit anyone with criminal records. Neither does Canada for that matter.
He did not have the proper documentation to bring merchandise to the USA.
Just another malcontent with an ax to grind. He broke the law and was convicted for it. There are consequences for such acts.
Frank
2 years ago
"There are consequences for
"There are consequences for such acts"
Except in BC where you get to stay premier.
No punishment at all if you're a Liberal.
Crash II
2 years ago
here's an idea
Douse the torch.
An Olympic event for the rest of us.
zalm
2 years ago
Wrong.....again
"The man is a convicted felon. He is therefore not admissible to the USA. They do not admit anyone with criminal records. Neither does Canada for that matter."
He is not a felon, because he was not convicted of a felony. He was convicted of a summary offence, not an indictable one, and that does not bar you from entering the US. The Border Service can always make judgement calls, but if there is a breath of "bombing" attached to his name, it's quite likely that was the action that got him barred from US entry. Freedom of speech goes out the window where the Border Service is concerned.
And the only question is who breathed the word to the Border Service.
What's the consequences for hubris, Wilfred? Shame?
Wilfride Laurier
2 years ago
Good Point
"but if there is a breath of "bombing" attached to his name, it's quite likely that was the action that got him barred from US entry"
Good point. I can see why this yahoo was refused entry.
Sask Resident
2 years ago
Gord Hill Ban
Doesn't Gord Hill know that the United States is another country and if it wants bar someone entry into their country, that is their right, just like it is for any other country. If the United States does not want somebody like Gord Hill in their country then that is their right. Gord Hill has no reason to whine, but he can always appeal or apply to be an immigrant to the US.
zalm
2 years ago
What if you were barred for ignorance?
Didn't you read the logic above? He is admissible on summary conviction to enter the US. His crime was not one of 'moral turpitude' as they are so fond of quoting. He had no reason to believe he would be denied. That he was denied entry is because someone in the US border service believes he seems more dangerous than he is.
And I, for one, would like to know the evidence of that. And if some Sask Resident doesn't care to know, I would merely ask him when he stopped beating his wife?