Fears of APEC-style Clash in 2010
Distrust, anger festering between activists and police. Learn from pepper spray nightmare, say critics.
Scene from APEC protests in Vancouver, 1997.
"It was kind of torturous." That's how long-time activist and Olympics Resistance Network member Garth Mullins described getting a face full of pepper spray on the final day of the 1997 APEC summit. In late November of that year, 18 world leaders descended on Vancouver to forge greater economic ties across the Asia-Pacific region.
But their high-profile talks are now remembered as the footnote to an event marked by ugly confrontations between police and protestors.
Mullins, who was 26 years old at the time, recalled how he pried his eyes open to remove his contact lenses as pepper spray pooled behind them. He told the Tyee he believes the APEC clashes were the product of weeks of distrust and enmity between activists and RCMP in the lead-up to the event.
Now a prominent figure in the anti-Olympics movement, Mullins has joined a growing chorus of voices that accuse police of heading down the same road to conflict once again. Unless things get better, they say, pre-Winter Games tensions could trigger an even higher profile confrontation in 2010.
"APEC was small-scale," said David Eby, acting executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. "There will be a huge number of tourists and visitors coming to the Vancouver area for the Games -- so the potential for embarrassment is significant."
Trouble brewing
In late 1996, news that Vancouver would be playing host to the annual economic meeting of Asian-Pacific leaders galvanized a fledgling anti-globalization movement. Across the city, a diverse mix of protest groups found common cause in a battle cry that linked free trade to a stifling of democracy and police repression.
"Throughout Vancouver there was definitely a groundswell of activism," said Jesse Ferreras, a reporter for Pique newsmagazine who wrote his master's thesis on the APEC confrontation.
The upsurge soon hit UBC's activist community after it learned that visiting dignitaries planned to converge on the Museum of Anthropology for the final day of the summit. Linguistics student and firebrand protestor Jaggi Singh helped form APEC Alert, a collection of fervent protestors that quickly became one of the most disruptive groups of the anti-APEC opposition.
Over the next year, its members crashed a mini-conference of Asian-Pacific diplomats, postered campus with "fuck APEC" signs and staked out an "APEC-free zone" near the Student Union Building.
The student population began to take notice -- and so did the RCMP.
Police crackdown
On November 13, 1997, RCMP Staff Sergeant Lloyd Plante informed fellow officers that he intended to seek charges against Singh for an altercation between the activist and a campus security guard six days earlier.
"An anti-APEC group, APEC ALERT, have several planned demonstrations which may involve civil disobedience from now until the conclusion of APEC on 97/11/25," he wrote in an e-mail to four Lower Mainland detachments. "It is hoped that we can obtain support from Crown which may result in a charge of assault against the obvious leader of the group, JAGGY SINGH. It is our intention if we can obtain a "no-go UBC" with respect to SINGH, we may basically "break the back" of this group."
On November 24 -- the day before leaders were set to arrive at UBC -- Singh was surrounded by four officers as he strolled across campus. Police wrestled the activist to the ground, placed him in handcuffs and threw him into the back of an unmarked car.
Ferreras said the incident had a profound effect on the student population.
"It was a very dramatic arrest done in public of a very high profile activist," he said. "It was absolutely a trigger for renewed anger among the protestors."
Security fence collapses
The next day, students and protest groups had plenty more to get riled up about.
Early that morning, law student Craig Jones was arrested for displaying signs that said "Democracy," "Free Speech," and "Human rights."
But even thornier was a controversial decision to relocate designated protest zones out of the sight of visiting world leaders -- a directive later traced back to the Prime Minister's Office. "That was a huge issue," Ferreras said. "The excrement wouldn't have hit the fan quite nearly as much if the protestors had known they could be seen by the dignitaries."
After gathering outside the Student Union Building, more than 1,000 protestors defied RCMP orders and marched towards the security fence at Rose Garden Plaza. Police watched warily as protestors climbed the rickety structure. The fence swayed under their weight, then collapsed.
Alarmed officers unleashed pepper spray into the crowd, students and activists were hauled to the ground and screams filled the air. A second clash followed later that day. By the end of it all, dozens of protestors had been arrested and Canada's reputation had taken a beating.
"The whole thing culminated with the pepper spray," Mullins said. "But it was the culmination of a very chilly climate for a protest."
Eleven years later
Not surprisingly, the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP was hit with a deluge of grievances after the event. Outraged protestors alleged everything from charter violations to police brutality -- claims the department considered serious enough to warrant an official inquiry. The public hearing took several years and offered an exhaustive look into the events leading up to the summit, the actions of police and protestors on Nov. 25 and the shortfalls of RCMP security preparations. In spring of 2002, the commission issued a final report with dozens of recommendations.
It was clear the RCMP had shown excessive force and poor planning in some instances, the report concluded, but APEC Alert's hostility to police helped sour relations between the two sides.
To avoid future conflicts, the report put the onus on security forces and activists to develop "cooperative relationships" well in advance of major public events.
More than 11 years after "peppergate" -- as the events of Nov. 25 are often called -- this conciliatory framework appears to be all but abandoned as the RCMP-led Integrated Security Unit prepares for the biggest peacetime security operation in Canadian history.
Like APEC, the 2010 Winter Games have united a diverse swath of protest groups eager to make their message heard. But as activists and civil liberties groups have attested, much work remains to repair a troubled relationship that could erupt in conflict when the world descends on Vancouver.
"There's absolutely a risk of the problems we saw with APEC," the BCCLA's Eby said.
Rocky start
Eby traced current tensions between activists and security forces to a relationship founded in rumour and suspicion. To provide a safe and secure Olympics, the RCMP was put in charge of a coordinated unit composed of local police, military and private security forces. Though Games security could cost $1 billion and put 12,000 officers on the streets of Vancouver and Whistler, preparations have been shrouded in secrecy.
With such a large force and scant details on how it will operate, activists feel left out of the planning process -- and worse, like police are scheming against them.
"Before the ISU ever contacted any activist groups, reports started coming out that intelligence officers were approaching activists and asking them to become informants," Eby said. "That started things off on a relationship of mistrust."
Mullins said nobody is sure if police have spied -- or are spying -- on the Olympics Resistance Network. But with protest groups listed by police alongside al-Qaeda as the biggest threat to the Games, he considered it likely.
"I would be extremely surprised if they weren't doing that right now," he said.
Police are trying
Like APEC Alert before it, the ORN is easily one of the loudest protest groups in the anti-Olympics coalition. Its members have disrupted VANOC press conferences, organized protest marches and even appeared in city council chambers. And like its predecessor, the ORN's actions have attracted police attention.
After a public presentation at city hall last month, three officers from the ISU's community liaison team approached Mullins and several other protestors. According to an ORN member at the scene, the officers "glad handed, sweet talked and [distributed] business cards in a very friendly way."
The activist wasn't impressed. "There is nothing to be gained from meeting with these people, and I think ORN should not do so as a group or as individuals," the activist wrote.
In a Q&A session with reporters several weeks ago, RCMP assistant commissioner Bud Mercer said the ISU has boosted its community relations team from three to five people over the last year and planned to double the numbers over coming months.
"I'm quite comfortable that they're reaching out to sectors of the public that they need to," he said. But he suggested that building a working relationship with protest groups requires cooperation from both sides.
"I think there's a responsibility on these groups that if we're not reaching out to them, that they reach out to us," Mercer said. "We'll continue to do our best."
'The meeting did not go well'
Worried that activists and downtown residents weren't being included in the security planning process, the BCCLA recently formed an outreach committee headed by retired judge Jerome Paradis. The group's plan was to engage the ISU in a dialogue that would address the concerns of local residents and protestors. But initial talks left committee members frustrated.
"The meeting did not go well," Eby said. "The ISU was not prepared to share any aspects of its security plan." Both sides have agreed to meet again in March, but unless the unit becomes more transparent, productive talks are unlikely, he said.
According to Mullins, the committee's experience has made many activists question the motives of security forces. "It sounds like they want a one-way flow of information -- they want to find out all about what we're doing but they're not interested in sharing back," he said.
With only a year to go until the Games and large-scale military exercises already underway, the window for meaningful security consultations is closing quickly -- but the ISU still has a chance to make things better, Mullins said.
As part of the bid process for the 2010 Games, VANOC, Vancouver and the federal and provincial governments agreed on a list of social commitments laid out in the Inner-City Inclusive Commitment Statement. Chief among them was a promise to "commit to a timely public consultation that is accessible to inner-city neighbourhoods, before any security legislation or regulations are finalized."
Last month, Vancouver City Council passed a motion urging VANOC to hold the meeting, a decision both Eby and Mullins supported. So far, the ISU hasn't made any commitments and e-mails from The Tyee to VANOC about the issue were not returned.
Lists of concerns
If such a meeting were held, it would give downtown residents, protest groups and security forces a chance to voice their concerns in a public setting, Mullins said.
No doubt, the session would be vocal.
Activists are worried that come Games-time, the ISU will force them into far-flung "protest pens" where their message won't reach the eyes and ears of spectators and media. They also want reassurances that security forces won't try to provoke a violent incident with protestors -- along the lines of the provocateur incident at Montebello -- to justify a crackdown.
On the security side, military and police officials need to be certain that activists will behave in a peaceful way and not try to disrupt the operations of the Games. And the BCCLA has raised a slew of issues, including the use of closed-circuit cameras, police crackdowns on the Downtown Eastside and potential restrictions caused by security barriers.
But until the ISU makes meaningful public consultation a reality, it runs the risk of repeating APEC all over again, Mullins said.
"If the police want to make Canada proud, they've got to change their paradigm entirely and get on board with the understanding that protest and resistance is really part of a democracy," he said.
Related Tyee stories:
- Want to follow Olympics news? Bookmark this category on The Hook, the political news blog of The Tyee.
- Another Olympic Cost: Your Privacy
Concerns about spy cameras, random searches and $1 billion in security measures. - Happy Birthday, Human Rights
At 60, the history and future of a powerful idea.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
anarcho
15-02-2009
"protest and resistance is
"protest and resistance is really part of a democracy,"
Not only that, we wouldn't have any democracy at all without protest and resistance.
The Olympics is nothing more than a tax-payer funded boondoggle and people have every right in the world to be angry and protest. The police acting as though they were threatened by some kind of civil war situation, rather than just a noisy demo, are doing so just to intimidate people. We are not violent people in Canada, if there is any violence it will be the work of agent provocateurs.
zalm
16-02-2009
I, for one
...will be happy to talk to the police, as soon as they tell me what their agenda is. Mine is to embarrass the city. Not the athletes, not the dignitaries (OK, well, maybe only a few of the more crooked IOC members), not the visitors. And certainly I won't be causing any trouble. But I won't look "sightly", because I don't feel "gruntled".
leftofcentre
16-02-2009
Protest? Or Violence?
It's really hard to take what anyone says from the ORN seriously. This is a group that has actively supported:
* Walking through downtown wearing balaclavas while threatening people.
* Throwing Rocks and Paint at Police and Olympic Supporters.
* Vandalizing Private and Public Property.
* Threatening Families with small children at Olympic events with violence.
There isn't a single civilized country in the world that considers any of these tactics forms of legitimate protest. It's shocking that the VPD continues to treat these dangerous thugs with kid gloves.
And it's insane that "activists" like David Eby supports violence like this.
leftofcentre
16-02-2009
And another thing...
I think it's also worth adding that most of the escalating security costs for the Olympics are due to the threats from these thugs. It has little to do with any "external" threats.
southdeltawalker
16-02-2009
No 2010 Games Spokesperson to speak.
Chris Shaw author of "Five Ring Circus"-an expose of the Olympic Games- will be speaking in Ladner Wed. Feb. 18 7-9 pm Ladner Pioneer Library 4683 51 St.
Chris Shaw is a founding member and lead spokesperon for the No Games 2010 Coalition and 2010 Watch
His book has been reviewed in The Tyee
http://thetyee.ca/Books/2008/06/26/FiveRingCircus/
Event sponsored by the Delta/Richmond Chapter of The Council of Canadians
anarcho
16-02-2009
Is this true?
Is what Left of Center writes true? I saw the video footage of the demo and it looked pretty feeble in terms of "violence." More scuffling than anything. Of course the media can be counted on to exaggerate things greatly. Note the choice of language "thugs" - and of course the criminals who got us into this Olympics mess aren't? What is the truth here?
yasmar
16-02-2009
One really must consider the
One really must consider the motives behind an event that breeds so much animosity between opposing parties.
I mean, how nefarious are the businessmen who are bringing this event to Vancouver? Is it not worth considering the potential strife? Maybe hosting the games is not the best thing for Vancouver - or any city for that matter - if the legacy they will leave in their wake is an increased police presence and hightened tensions between groups (classes) who are already playing out a cold war on a daily basis.
If the olympics are not akin to a malignant growth, then why do they attract so much hatred and distrust?
yasmar
16-02-2009
"...the RCMP-led Integrated
"...the RCMP-led Integrated Security Unit prepares for the biggest peacetime security operation in Canadian history."
Disgusting. What are they protecting? If the olympics are so benign, why the paranoia? Why go to such extremes?
This is absolutely insane.
southdeltawalker
16-02-2009
The Real Olympic Violence is on Nature and wildlife
The Olympics with it's development is destroying forests, watersheds and taking away valuable habitat from wildlife.
Here is an excerpt from an article by Whistler journalist Pina Belperio:
"The pristine Callaghan Valley is home to the Whistler Olympic Park and host of the Nordic, ski jumping and biathlon events.
While this area is undoubtedly one of most scenic on earth, the completion of this venue has come with a hefty price. Between 89,000 and 120,000 old-growth trees have been cleared to build the legacy trails and ski jumps. Trails were cut without any buffers around watersheds and sensitive wetlands. The trails' have also led to increased traffic into the backcountry by snowmobilers and motorized vehicles.
Despite biological studies, VANOC has refused to create to a Grizzly Bear Legacy as part of the games long-term legacy. The newly cleared trails will have serious impacts on the Grizzly Bears' movement and rehabilitation."
Full article from rabble.ca
http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/word-rings/%E2%80%9Cgreenest-games-ever%E2%80%9D-lack-environmental-legacy
The Olympics are built on the blood of dead animals, destroyed environment and the greed of developers.
Some "world class" event.
leftofcentre
16-02-2009
Anti-Olympic record of violence
You asked for it, so here's a sample:
Feb. 14, 2007 - Olympic Clock unveiling: "a masked man as well as veteran protester David Cunningham, Chettiar's partner, accessed the stage. The masked protester grabbed host Renee Smith-Valade's microphone and shouted "f--- 2010" while Cunningham chanted "homes not Games." Protesters threw paint-filled balloons and papier mache-wrapped rocks. " - 24 hours
April, 2007 - Olympic Flag is stolen & Olympic Clock vandalized.
May 23, 2007 - Anti-Olympic Protestors trash Gordon Campbell's Office, "overturning furniture, shattering glassware". (Globe & Mail)
August 28, 2008 - Olympic clock vandalized again with 3 arrests. (CBC)
Sept.21, 2008 - Masked protestors threaten families and Children in Port Moody as they try to halt the 2010 Sprit Train. Two people were arrested. (CBC)
Nov. 21, 2008 - The ORN hangs a banner calling for riots in 2010.
Ongoing: RBC banks targeted for anti-Olympic vandalism at least nine times by activists in Vancouver, Ottawa and Victoria.
Feb.12, 2009: A masked mob carrying torches burn an olympic flag, vandalize the olympic clock and throw rocks at police.
So...these tactics are the work of peaceful protestors?
Being against the 2010 games is fine. I think documentaries such as Chris Shaw's & the books of Andrew Jennings are great for provoking discussion and seeing the games in another light.
But thugs like Garth Mullins are going to be responsible for the death of either a police officer or an innocent bystander someday. He and the rest of the ORN need a lesson in what Ghandiesque civil disobedience actually is.
cboo44
16-02-2009
Olympic Protests and Riots
I have no problem with protesting the Olympics coming to Vancouver/BC/Canada, by whatever LAWFUL means possible. I also question the money and influence being spread around in support of this effort.
BUT, isn't the confrontational protests getting a bit old? Guess what? The Olympics are almost here. Let's put effort into discovering and mitigating the issues that will surface AFTER the event.
And just to be really OBJECTIVE, let's "follow the money" in the case of the ORN and Mullins and his gang of thugs. OK?
Let's NOT allow statements like:"...law student Craig Jones was arrested for displaying signs that said "Democracy," "Free Speech," and "Human rights" to just slide by. Jones was arrested for assault, using those "signs" as a club. Nicely skimmed over, though.
Let's be suspicious of agendas that somehow instigate violence at a wide range of very different "events". Is Mullins and his mob REALLY protesting, or just using some event to perpetrate violence for a giggle or PROFIT?
yasmar
16-02-2009
Re: Leftofcentre and Cboo44
Vandalising the olympic clock, stealing and burning flags, and trashing Campbell's office are very peaceful ways of demonstrating opposition to the olympics.
Hurting other human beings (regardless of who and what they represent) is wrong. However, I guarantee the RCMP have wounded (and more recently, killed) more people than any 2010 or anti-poverty protester has.
I don't believe in violence (I believe in Thoreauvian civil disobedience), but marginalised people DO have breaking points. There is only so much they will take before they stand up for themselves, you know. When big money comes swooping in to a town with a very wide gap between the rich and poor, it hurts. The poor don't take kindly to exclusive events like the olympic games. If the games didn't threaten to have such a negative impact on their lives, maybe people would be less inclined to protest. However, the games will (and are already having) a major impact on the lives of the working poor in BC. This is why they are upset. Protests are not just for show. They represent real concerns.
And I guarantee nobody but VANOC and their political cohorts are going to profit from the olympics. However, maybe I can rent out my over-priced, moldy basement suite for two weeks come 2010. NOT! What kind of self-respecting olympic-goer would want to spend any time whatsoever in my crappy poor man's abode?
Or maybe I can bottle tap water and sell it to tourists come 2010. HA! I'll show off my entrepreneurial flare like a true free-market capitalist! HAHA! If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!
But seriously: Why do liberals and the rest of the centre-right bother reading The Tyee? Stick to the corporate-controlled media outlets for your information; they speak for you. Minority opinions (those of the rich) get all the major press. Let the majority have their say. What are you afraid of?
leftofcentre
16-02-2009
Double Standards
Vandalism is violence. They're not separable,
trueman
16-02-2009
olympickings
Just as an aside, I agree with most of the observations that the olympics are a giant boondoggle and generally only benefit the rich and powerul, and a few lucky athletes who reach their peak of talent at the right moment.
But I am older and more restrained than many. The anger that is generated by the extreme anti-olympic activists seems to me to be an agonizingly inept expression of something much more ingrained than the target of their bile.
The massive amount of money and resourses that will be spent and wasted in the name of "security" will find validation only in violence and spectacle.
Extremism in sport (the Olympics) will be matched by extremism in response (violent and provocative protest.) Sport is a force for good believe. Protest in moderation is essential.
Both sport and protest will likely be belittled by the events we will more than likely witness in 2010.
G West
16-02-2009
double standards
Child Poverty is violence!
Hopelessness is violence!
Greed and selfishness are violence!
None of them are separable either.
leftofcentre
16-02-2009
G West's Double Standards
So by your comment, we can assume it's ok for people to commit vandalism and assault in the name of child poverty, hopelessness, greed and selfishness?
Your hyperbole knows know bounds.
anarcho
16-02-2009
Minor stuff
Really pretty minor stuff, Leftof Centre. I would say YOUR hyperbole knows no bounds. How is it that the people have to be pure and saintly, yet our rulers can commit any crime against us? You show no understanding at all. Of course I don't think some of the things they did were right, but given the situation they are quite understandable. Seems to me that you are outraged because you want to be outraged about these people.
leftofcentre
16-02-2009
anarcho
Most people don't call people in balaclavas throwing rocks and paint minor stuff. And calling these things "understandable" is just another way of tacitly endorsing violence.
Methods of effective peaceful protest have long been established. But their ignored by the ORN, because they require things like dialogue and compromise. It's much easier just to smash stuff.
Everytime the ORN's mobs cross the line, people are put at risk or property are damaged. If you think that any cause is an excuse for this, you should put yourselves in the shoes of the families or small children that are threatened whenever these mobs are present.
Luke Skywalker
16-02-2009
Some Real Winners...
Garth Mullins interests:
Yuppers.
And the Olympic security budget??? Focused primarily against these clowns.
Money down the drain that could have been focused on resolving social issues.
RickW
16-02-2009
Well there is always this variation:
"What would happen if they threw an olympics and no one came?"
There are no guarantees that the "downturn" won't turn abysmal, and people will be too wrapped up in survival to plane, train and automobile their way to the games.
anarcho
16-02-2009
More info needed
Leftof Center, I think we can agree that ORN has made some tactical mistakes. A banner asking people to riot is an open invitation to the secret police. But there is another matter. Were you an actual eye-witness to what you report? I have been involved in protests since 1965 and never met anyone who would "threaten women and children" So is this stuff actually all true or a media fabrication?
anarcho
16-02-2009
Still no big deal
"Most people don't call people in balaclavas throwing rocks and paint minor stuff."
Guess you have never been on a picket line eh? People get punched, windows smashed, vehicles disabled, even torched etc. All par for the course. Handful of kids throwing rocks and paint at the cops, yes, wrong, yes, stupid, but nonetheless, in the real world, BFD!
And by the way, understanding is not the same as excusing, and neither is putting something in context.
Stump
16-02-2009
not rocks
The "papier mache-covered rocks" were actually rattles.
Fii
16-02-2009
I read today that many
I read today that many schools will be closing during the Olympics, to lighten traffic on the road generated by weekday school activites...??
Now that's ridiculous. I mean, it's a good idea in so far as traffic WILL be a gong show, and it's great for the kids, but if I were a parent I'd be a tad irritated. The Olympics really are going to interrupt 'normal' everyday life for the citizens of this city, and that's really not fair.
Crass
16-02-2009
$1,000,000,000 for
$1,000,000,000 for security!
I wonder how all that dough will be spread around. Much of it will go into 'soft' security measures, like publicly denouncing people like Garth Mullins on the Tyee, to discredit him and other organizations opposed to the Olympics.
A part of the billion dollars being spent on Olympic security are probably paying the full-time salaries of individuals actively engaged on an 8 hour per day, 5 day/wk mission to discredit organizations and groups opposed to the Olympics.
One way to counteract these security efforts is to leave 'false scents' on 'potential' 'security' threats, thereby leading security officials on wild goose chases.
These Olympic Games are nothing more then tax-payer troughs where corporations and friends of the BC Liberal Party gorge themselves on construction contracts.
Meanwhile, homelessness increases, child and adult poverty increases, city of Vancouver has to restrict services to its citizens due to Olympic-related financial obligations, Native rights get trampled upon and the environment gets trashed.
ALL FOR WHAT?
Luke Skywalker
16-02-2009
Crass...
Mullins is a nutbar. Remember the Canucks Stanley Cup riots, whereby this guy first made his name instigating the rolling over of police cars and lighting fires?
Cool!!!!!!!!
If that's the mindset of Tyee posters, then man are you guys out to lunch. I hope you guys enjoyed the kids crying at the launch of the cross-Canada Olympic train as a result of the conduct of these clowns.
The same left-wing lunatic fringe also played the same game prior to Expo' 86. After opening day of Expo '86, nobody ever heard from them again. NADA.
But if the Olympic security budget is increased as a result of these left-wing lunatics, then (as Bill Tieleman would conversely say regarding rising gas prices) just link the same to the left-wing elements within the NDP.
BTW, It's already started [from Hansard]:
It certainly makes for good politics to further marginalize the BC NDP in the provincial arena. ;)
Lastly, from last week's Strategic Counsel public opinion poll:
And if people wanna play with public opinion then they are a playin' with fire.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090212.OLYMPICSPOLL12/TPStory/National
Crass
16-02-2009
Luke Skywalker: Stop
Luke Skywalker:
Stop telling lies on this public forum. Garth Mullins had nothing to do with the Stanley Cup riot. There is no evidence to support your claim that he did.
And what does Expo 86 have anything to do with the Olympics?
Luke Skywalker
16-02-2009
Crass...
Video footage from Robson Street at the time clearly identified Mullins as a perpetrator during the Stanley Cup riots.
That's where he outed himself in the public.
If ya don't believe same then contact one of the local media outlets (video library), VPD, the RCMP, or CSIS.
Crass
16-02-2009
Skywalker: I just did a
Skywalker: I just did a google search and there is nothing relating Garth Mullins to the Stanley Cup riot. NOTHING!
Why don't you provide some evidence of your claim before publicly denouncing people, while not revealing your own identity. That is cowardice.
Bobby Peru
16-02-2009
Utterly misguided
Instigating violence, provoking police and damaging property and endangering the general public are all tools of ORN and all these professional agitators who find sympathy and sanctuary in Beautiful BC. And they are a sizeable subculture that splinters off into violent groups like the Squamish Five or the current group bombing natural gas pipeline systems.
I can't understand their utter disregard for public safety. Maybe it's their version of sacrificial lambs for their vision of the greater good. Are they leading us to greater good or are they trying to impose their version of anarchy? Do any of these protesters have real jobs or families and understand their contradictions? Maybe they do and their kids are happy to see them come home smelling like mace and tear gas.
Really, the general public has little sympathy for those who taunt and provoke the police. What do you expect to happen? Do you really expect the pubic to rise up and support you in the streets? No, you're seen as no better than English football hooligans.
Stump
16-02-2009
"endangering the general
"endangering the general public"
In what way?
Take a deep breath.
"Do any of these protesters have real jobs or families and understand their contradictions?"
Such as?
dorothy
16-02-2009
Oh, come on...
If downplaying anticipated budget overruns and lying to citizens to get your lollipop through, and then have the gall to come looking for our hard-earned tax-dollars is not a form of violence, I don't know what is...I also think the cop-out of a vote, which only included half of the people who acutally gets affected by this circus, and accepting a result based on a dubious quorum - to me, the whole thing stinks. I am not bent on violent protest, but please get me a big barf bucket for the occasion, for I know I'll be needing one, when it gets cheezy and tear-jerking.
Bobby Peru
17-02-2009
BC Beautiful Anarchy
Well, Stump, innocent citizens can be hurt in any of these anarchy protests. How about innocent bystanders? Children, senior citizens passing by? How about innocent office workers just making a living while anarchists invade a VANOC office and trash the equipment? Or are they and we the enemy, too?
Che Guevera may be your romantic, patron saint, but don't forget all the people he killed on his way to martyrdom. Just because you don't think of yourselves as criminals it doesn't mean criminal behaviour isn't what it is.
What about the workers and families who could get hurt when those terrorists explode a natural gas pipleline?
leftofcentre
17-02-2009
Defence of Violence
The comments here excusing and endorsing the violent actions of the ORN are shameful.
As I said earlier, there are many peaceful, effective means of protest against the Olympics. The "Poverty Olympics" held just last week is a great example. Here was a family-friendly, satirical event that made many valid points against the Olympics, while sporting a chuckle or two. It's tactics like this that are far more likely to find support among the majority of people than the thug tactics taken so far.
Stump
17-02-2009
bob and left
No one is endorsing violence by pointing out you two are engaged in hysterical fear-mongering.
Let's look at who actually DOES get hurt at these protests.
Kent State - students killed
Gastown Riot - police beat (gasp) pot smoking hippies
Stanley Cup Riot - police fired rubber bullet permanently disables man
Guns n Roses riot - police beat innocent bystander in front of his daughters
Woodwards Occupation - no one
2010 Clock protest - no one
APEC - police pepper sprayed students
At any protest, you have more to fear from the police than from the protestors (in terms of getting hurt).
Bob:
My personal hero isn't Che or anyone who takes an extreme position or advocates violence against other people. My feelings regarding monkey-wrenching or sabotage are more nuanced. Direct action isn't necessarily a good or bad thing. It depends on the context and the amount of planning beforehand.
However, the current situaton is just a retread of other societies in other times which placed the desires of the elite over the needs of the dispossessed. This situation always ends the same way for the same reasons. If things get ugly, Gordo, Furlong et al have no one to blame but themselves.
As to the pipeline bombings it has nothing to do with 2010 AFAIK, why do you lump them together? It weakens your argument IMO.
dorothy
17-02-2009
there is just this...
'..Here was a family-friendly, satirical event that made many valid points against the Olympics, while sporting a chuckle or two..'
But it sort of misses the point of protesting in front of the friends and family; read: the international league of moneyed people, whom our own 'creme de la creme' wishes to show that the people here (that's you and me) are docile, pluckable, happy-go-lucky idiots, who will eat whatever kind of crap. You see, that will 'attract foreign investments', and 'we' so badly want to sell our country piece by piece, to profiteers everywhere. So yes, those who go out there and line the roads, knowing the pepper and the nightsticks will be waiting for them, I'm sorry, but they are taking it up for you and me and our franchise. I think not acknowledging that, whether you can hack it yourself or not, will be the truly shameful thing to do.
leftofcentre
17-02-2009
Stump...you just endorsed it...
"Direct Action" doesn't have nuances or context.
It vandalism. And vandalism is not a form of peaceful, legitimate protest.
It is a form of violence. Period.
And in every situation you mentioned above (with the exception of Kent State), who was provoking? Who was endangering property and lives before the police had to move in for arrests? How many police officers were injured at APEC (at least five)? How much looting was happening during the Stanley Cup Riot? What would have happened if no police showed up to the Guns n' Roses Riot? What if one of the paper-mache rocks (and yes, they were rocks, not rattles) had hit a child or a police officer? What if paint splattered in an innocent bystander's eye? How much of my taxpayer money went towards cleaning up after ORN violence and vandalism?
The lame excuses offered here constantly lead to just the same thing. There are people on this board that endorse lawlessness, anarchy and violence over peaceful protest and dialogue.
None of these are acceptable in a peaceful western democracy.
Stump
17-02-2009
Nuance and context
"Direct Action" doesn't have nuances or context.
Of course it does. Hanging a banner on a smokestack is a direct action. There's a wide range of peaceful things one can do that fall under the category of direct action.
You don't know what you're talking about, so I'll leave you to it.
G West
17-02-2009
Poverrty and Homelessness
Are also illegitimate, and, in effect, forms of violence against human beings.
PERIOD
southdeltawalker
17-02-2009
Definitions and interpretations
There has been a lot of disagreement and what looks like libel towards one person in these posts.
I agree that the term "direct action' is a broad one and means different things to different people.
As does the word "violence"-you don't have to be hit on the head to experience a violent attack on your being. Homelessness, hunger, poverty, are all a form of violence-the intent is to demean you. As is destroying the environment and habitat.
The rich and the developers have one experience of the Olympics,
most of the rest of us have a very different experience.
Out of this there will be very different responses. The rich, the I.O.C. and the developers will have the police and security on their side.
What will we have on ours?
anarcho
17-02-2009
What is Your Agenda, Left of Center?
You seem to have an agenda. We both agree that the ONG tactics, if they really occurred, are wrong. Why not leave it there? Why the need to blow things out of proportion? This is allied to Luke's characterization of the tepid social democrats of the NDP as “loony left”. A demonization process, that lets the real criminals off the hook.
It is a very old tactic, dating back at least to the propaganda by slave owners against the Abolitionists, to zero in on some offense a minority of protesters have committed and bellow loudly about how terrible it is. This deflects from the real issue which is the crime of slavery or whatever is being protested. It is also a tactic to expect the opposition to behave absolutely saint-like, meanwhile the authorities can do what ever they want. It is also a tactic to denounce anyone who seeks to explain or understand why some protesters might go outside the law, while not supporting what they do, as excusing their practices.
On the fringe of every social movement are a number of young people who have no strategy for change other than action. They also tend to equate militance with being revolutionary. They are impatient, newly aware of the crimes committed by the system and so “want to do something.” (Remember how angry you were when you first realized the system is a racket?) They do not yet realize the need for a long process of organization and that real change occurs not thru tiny militant groups but mass movements. They are not bad people, let alone “thugs”, but simply naive. Many of us went through this stage. (I am not saying that ONG are naive young people, since I don't know them and wasn't there at the event, but merely trying to explain in a dispassionate and rational way why some people act in an “ultra” fashion.)
anarcho
17-02-2009
Utter Nonsense!
"Direct Action" doesn't have nuances or context.
It vandalism."
You should be ashamed of yourself writing such rubbish in the age of Wikipedia and Google. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action
I am beginning to suspect you are really a wolf in sheep's clothing. More like "Right of Center, than Left of Center.
lemonheart
17-02-2009
I may be wrong but....
...our "democratic" voting system is merely a device to give those educated enough to know what "democracy" means {..and still think we live in one} a chance to feel like they have a say, a stand.
Like wise, I feel the same way about peaceful protests.
I'm as peace loving as the next person but reality has taught me - again, maybe I'm wrong - that NOTHING but massive severe events or hinderances to the cash flow will scare those up the ladder and to believe otherwise is hopelessly naive and worthlessly utopian.
Sure, it helps galvanize some groups together and raises some awareness but how much?
Greed stops at nothing, well some things, and until there are 100,000 people protesting in the downtown streets preferably waving large sticks we can expect the same results as always : next to nothing other than a self-pat on the back for showing up.
We are all free until the moment we stand up for ourselves and that Big Stick of government smacks us down - just in case you've forgotten that s**t runs downhill.
These "people" do not respond to reason nor do they entertain the wanton demands of the common folk unless FORCED.
Hot cocoa, warm blankets, and folk songs will get you nowhere in the 21st century except stepped on.
Which we in Canada seem to take perverse pleasure in.....
leftofcentre
17-02-2009
lemonheart wrote: "Greed
lemonheart wrote:
"Greed stops at nothing, well some things, and until there are 100,000 people protesting in the downtown streets preferably waving large sticks we can expect the same results as always : next to nothing other than a self-pat on the back for showing up....Hot cocoa, warm blankets, and folk songs will get you nowhere in the 21st century except stepped on."
____
No, this is where Ghandi has proved you wrong. He never needed sticks. He even claimed he would never need the sticks against the Nazis (He said it they would win through a horrible cost, but wasn't the war exacting a horrible cost?).
The Hot cocoa, warm blankets, and maybe more modern songs might attract the 100,000 you need more than sticks. People these days aren't against protest.
They're against the sticks.
anarcho
17-02-2009
A Little History Lesson
I think it needs to be pointed out that just about everything that we value in terms of freedom and social justice came about through struggles that at SOME time involved property damage and personal violence. This does not mean, however, that struggles for liberty and justice MUST involve property damage and personal violence, it is just that this has happened frequently in history. (Just to eliminate one possible straw man argument.) Next, is the reason for these acts. Where it was not plainly cop agent provocateurs, it is almost always people frustrated by the authorities total unwillingness to listen to peaceful protest. Change will come, no matter what - those who refuse to allow peaceful change make violent change inevitable.
Let's look at an historical example at home. For 40 years the coal miners of Nanaimo were bullied and exploited by Dunsmuir. He refused to allow a union or listen to the men. More than 300 men died in accidents. Finally in 1912 they had enough and went on strike. The coal company brought in scabs. Something snapped and the miners and scabs shot it out at the mine. Shots were exchanged for 6 hours. The miners then dynamited the mines, burned the pit heads and coal cars. They also dynamited the scabs hotel, burned the mine managers mansion to the ground, burned his car and then burned the scabs houses. The government then sent in the army who threatened the men with Maxim guns, arrested about 200 of them and the strike was terminated.
None of this would have occurred if Dunsmuir had treated the miners fairly to begin with.
Blackbird
17-02-2009
Lead by Example
If the goal is to end violence, then using violence to achieve it is hypocritical.
Threatening to riot during the Olympic Games will likely get you scooped up and detained shortly before they begin. $1 billion buys a whole lot of surveillance.
Stump
17-02-2009
exactly anarcho!
Couldn't agree more. Not to mention the making of our modern democracies required armed revolutions in the USA and France to scare the other imperial powers into recognizing the inherent right of all to have a say in the way they are governed. We also shouldn't forget that the English baron's threat of revolt was required before King John acceded to the Magna Carta.
Nothing is more predictable than oppressed people using the same threats of violence they labour under and turning them to their own ends. The bleats and protestations against a little property damage are laughable. The comparisons, ridiculous, when set beside the damage wrought on poor people by the Games and their build-up.
anarcho
18-02-2009
ORN demo video
Here is the You tube video of the Feb 12 demo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW8vgCGxFsc
See if you can find any "violence."
southdeltawalker
18-02-2009
Olympic organizing committee spends 1/2 million on party
....for a chosen few. The party was invite only. That was what the demo on the streets on Feb. 12 was outside of. See video link in "anarcho" comment above.
Certainly did not see any violence, only folks in the street with lots of cops around.
I guess the police had to protect the rich inside less their cocktails be spoilt by "the rabble" outside.
The poor and the hungry and the homeless were only a few blocks away from this party.
It is all too disgusting. We need more people in the streets to protest this greedy, land grabbing spectacle called the Olympic Games!
lemonheart
18-02-2009
leftofcentre: greed
You are right about Ghandi. Anarcho expressed the part I missed.
Pacifism is certainly useful when huge numbers are involved- which does not happen here. We also live in a much different time with much different people. And Playstation.....
The government needs to know that they had best give careful consideration to how the people might REACT before the implementation of any crass political douchebaggery. There needs to be an element of uncertainty for those in government and there isn't because they can 99% of time count on folks whining over beer while watching the hockey game.
Look at the how government and business really operate and adjust the program accordingly.
Will future generations look back and wonder why the Luxury Age didn't fight back, didn't stop the insanity?
You don't fight a forest fire with feathers and good intentions..........It will not work.
reallife
19-02-2009
Democratic decision?
Wasn't the decision to seek the Olympics made by a democratically elected government (supported by a partial referundum)? I do not think this was a good decision but I accept that a democracy does not always produce decisions that match my particular needs or tastes.
Certainly protest is a legitimate way of showing displeasure with government decisions. But violent protest or vandalism is criminal and should be treated as such.
anarcho
19-02-2009
What violent protest?
What violent protest, realife? I posted the You Tube video - tame stuff. I have asked Right of Centre three days ago for evidence. Nada.
Crass
21-02-2009
I agree with lemonheart that
I agree with lemonheart that you don't fight forest fires with feathers and good intentions.
The Organizers of the Olympics, the police and security, and the politicians are ALL COUNTING ON NON-VIOLENT PROTESTS.
Always guaranteeing non-violent protests in response to the corporate tax-payer funded trough these games represent means that the people responsible for these games will have absolutely nothing to fear by their greed and self-serving decisions.
By saying that protests will never ever turn violent in response to self-serving decisions made by the ruling class means that they will NEVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT REPERCUSSIONS OF THEIR DECISIONS. What kind of society is that, if the ruling class are NEVER ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS?
An idea Re. the non-violent Anti-Olympic You-Tube video: Using torches to spell out a slogan summarizing the gist of the reasons behind this Olympics Resistance movement - while planes overhead broadcast for the world to see.