Toronto Media Co-op
Local Independent News
Can you support independent journalists with $5? donate today!
Debunking veteran activist Judy Rebick's G20 Toronto police car conspiracy theory
Blog posts reflect the views of their authors.
Vancouver anti-G20 solidarity photo by Stephen Hui
Debunking veteran activist Judy Rebick's G20 Toronto police car conspiracy theory
By Oshipeya
Coast Salish Territory, Vancouver, Canada
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Veteran Toronto activist Judy Rebick claimed she was shocked by images of police cars burning and corporate windows being smashed at the G20 protests in Toronto on Saturday. In her Rabble.ca article entitled “Toronto is burning! Or is it?”, she even went so far as to state that, “none of us had ever seen Toronto like this”.
Exactly how “veteran” of an activist is Rebick then? Has she really not even heard of the Queen's Park riot of June 2000 or the Rodney King solidarity riot along Yonge Street in 1992? Surely, that can't be the case. Then it must be the supposed extremity of the burning police cars, more so than the broken windows or attacks on cops.
1992 Toronto riot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WZtRw9II2s
But Rebick wouldn't even need to be an activist, let alone a veteran one, to have at least heard about or seen images of many more burning police cars in not-so-far-away Montreal a few years ago after a first round hockey playoff win, or the rioting and looting in that city after this year's second round victory, or the rioting after the Montreal police killing of the young Fredy Villanueva.
Judy Rebick's conspiracy theory article at Rabble.ca:
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/judes/2010/06/toronto-burning-or-it
Rebick is trying to convince us that the Toronto cops allowed the black bloc to run wild, that the cops purposely left their cars to be trashed and that they could have arrested the black bloc earlier on when their wasn't such a big crowd for them to mesh with. She's tried this not only with her Rabble.ca article but with her appearance on a CP24 news program.
CP24 interviews Judy Rebick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iaG1H0pDxY
The problem being that she doesn't know what she's talking about and is contradicted by numerous sources of photographic, video and verbal evidence which show the scene on Queen near Spadina, where a police officer still inside his vehicle is under attack from all sides by black blocers, with other police scrambling in and one even tripping in her attempt to save her co-worker. Objects are still being thrown at the police and the officer who was inside later tells the Toronto Star that he was hit in the back of the head with a pole.
Black bloc attacks cop car with cop inside it at 0:42 seconds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOjGdvju-po
Toronto Star article:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/829587--the-fir...
The car was not burned until later, when the black bloc was gone and ordinary and not-so-ordinary citizens were having fun playing with the police equipment.
Citizens having fun with trashed police car:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDf8u5NATDY
Another video shows a single cop running in to attack the black bloc as they smash police cars that would also be burned in the financial district.
Big-time-hero cop attacks black bloc by himself at 3:12 seconds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKIeDpqZdFI
There is also video and photo of a line of riot police blocking the black bloc and other demonstrators from continuing at one intersection.
One of the police raids on houses prior to the riot was described by police as having busted a black bloc affinity group before they had a chance to join the demonstration and do their dirty deeds. Of course, we shouldn't take the cops' or the media's word for it, but at least this, and the many police visits and instances of harassment leading up to the summit, shows that the cops were trying to intimidate and limit the black bloc as much as they could.
The bloc was part of the large crowd at the start of the demonstration, and the bloc, unlike peaceful protesters, is known to fight back, so if the cops had tried to arrest them all at the beginning it could have provoked more serious fights and rioting.
In addition, the black bloc tactic is not illegal in itself, so it would have appeared undemocratic for the cops to mass arrest them before they had committed any crimes. It's far better for the police and their bosses' democratic image to try to intimidate anyone from taking part in the black bloc beforehand, out of the public spotlight, and then use cameras and plain-clothes or black-bloc-dressed infiltrators to do surveillance of the black bloc during the demonstration and to use that to do snatch-squad arrests during or after the demo.
Although the cops are known liars, we can see that there may be some truth to their claim that they had committed much in the way of resources to defending the fence and the summit site.
They may not have expected the route of the bloc, since it was thought to have been trying to ultimately go to the fence. They also committed many resources to Queen's Park, a site where they could anticipate making arrests more easily. The various groups of protesters and their different and sometimes chaotic movements might have presented some difficulty. And, as mentioned, the black bloc may have fought back at any point, creating even more chaos and more violent imagery.
A mass arrest attempt that didn't manage to net most of the black bloc could have left the majority of the bloc outside the net to go on about their dastardly business.
Rebick apparently would rather the black bloc didn't exist and that everyone just protested peacefully. But don't the police allow for peaceful protest, at least until the black bloc has done its thing? So wouldn't that make the peaceful protests the first conspiracy and the black bloc the secondary one? And if the cops are going to use black bloc tactics to crush peaceful protests they normally couldn't because of societal democratic values, wouldn't that mean that a black bloc or some kind of force like it is needed to fight back against the police and their state, since they won't allow us to even protest peacefully?
To bolster her Toronto conspiracy theory, Rebick bring up the Montebello incident where masked cop infiltrators were exposed and the cops admitted the infiltration. She neglects to mention that it was the real black blocers who exposed the cops, not the union leader who couldn't understand the word “police” in French. She also, of course, doesn't bring up this year's March 15th anti-police demonstration in Montreal, where masked police attempting to infiltrate the demo were physically attacked and driven out.
Rebick uses the term “agent provocateur”, as others have. But do the cops really need to “provoke” the black bloc or others into burning cop cars or smashing corporate windows? You can't provoke a group to do what it is already doing and wants to be doing. You can only provoke people into doing what they wouldn't otherwise do. This is what the cops are concerned with most of all about the black bloc. That the bloc will inspire others who would like to riot but who feel isolated and unable to. That the black bloc will “provoke” others into doing what they already want to, joining in the fun.
And we couldn't expect Rebick to mention how peaceful or non-black-bloc activist groups have been proven to have been infiltrated by cops as well, even more easily than the black bloc.
But the police are not all-powerful, as Rebick implies. They couldn't completely control the G20 protests, just as they couldn't totally control the Queen's Park riot or the 1992 Yonge Street riot or the black bloc at the Vancouver Olympics in February of this year. This is neither shocking nor a surprise. They must and did allow many peaceful protests against the G20 prior to the rioting, because they are paid to uphold a democratic state that allows for peaceful protest so long as it does not interfere too much with business as usual. They also work hard to prevent black bloc activity and to crush it wherever possible.
The cops certainly use the black bloc as an excuse to do mass arrests and quell peaceful protests, but they also are trying to disperse crowds and take away any cover for possible black bloc activities, as well as give the appearance that they are back in control of things.
Again, if the cops can use unfounded excuses to round up the peaceful, that means not-so-peaceful methods are needed to fight back and overcome the repression rather than concede to it or say that we should never fight back so that we can always protest. Protest is useful if it supports social movements and direct action. It is useless if it cowers at ever going beyond voicing dissent to making concrete changes because the police won't allow it.
The video evidence of the cop car attacks in Toronto clearly shows that Rebick is either ignorant of the circumstances she speaks of or is lying. Either way, it appears that the reality of many people, black bloc and otherwise, finding joy in the trashing, burning and mocking of police vehicles is an inconvenient truth for her.
Rarely has a conspiracy theory been so quickly and incontrovertibly debunked.
It could be considered quite ridiculous to think that the cops and the corporations wanted their property trashed and that the city and Canada preferred the image of rebellion in the streets, of a city out-of-control. One of the main purposes, if not the main purpose of the G20, is mere propaganda, an image of control, of the best of all possible worlds. Most of the important decisions are already made elsewhere.
We all know that the G20 was an inside job. And maybe the black bloc really are shape-shifting alien lizards from a secret civilization on the moon. But maybe we should use the time-honoured principle of sticking with the simplest answer rather than the most complicated and outlandish one. Cops harass, hurt and murder lots of people daily. So lots of people would like to see their cars go up in smoke. Cops aren't all-knowing, all-powerful and all-controlling and aren't used to people challenging their authority.
Not so shocking now is it?
About the poster
1720 words
Comments
The Black Bloc fucked us
Submitted by Mike McGregor on Thu, 07/01/2010 - 16:15.
I'm just going to say it because I need to get it off my chest. I'm really disappointed with their conduct Saturday. I'm angry and disappointed. I'm just at a loss as to how we can realistically continue to defend these tactics after I observed them for my self.
Some points,
The violence of this Black Bloc wasn't just directed towards property. People were attacked and endangered through their recklessness during Saturday's march. I personally was threatened and attacked by black bloc members because i had a camera. I saw black block members attack several other photographers for myself. I also came very close to getting a rock in the head that was headed for a window. On other occasions I saw bloc members smash windows with bystanders on the other side of the windowpane. Not to mention the attacks against police that I witnessed. Putting aside for a moment the argument that attacks against property are not violence, attacks against people certainly are violence and their reprehensible.
Whether the police felt their crackdown was a necessity after the black bloc action or the action was the excuse the police needed to start it, the Black Bloc action by 75-100 individuals was the event that lead to 10 000 of our allies facing police violence and 900 of them being arrested. A small cadre changed the entire dynamic of the convergence and its relationship with the police. After Saturday's Bloc march, no space in Toronto was safe for dissent. Sometimes I wonder if some people who use these tactics aren't hoping for a violent response against their allies just to prove a point about the violence of the state... The Bloc's also made the actions of police acceptable in the eyes of the wider public. This Bloc's actions essentially justified the $1 billion in security costs, the fence, the secret law and the mass arrests in the public opinion.
Respect for diversity of tactics does not excuse activists from being accountable for their actions, but that is how it is treated by members of the black bloc. We lose credibility as a whole to our audience when property destruction and violence occur, these tactics endanger others who choose not to use them (directly and afterwords when police react to them), when these negative effects are felt, members of the Black Bloc are long gone after essentially using the rest of us as human shields... I believe to an extent that this indifference to the damage Bloc tactics do to our movement comes from vastly different priorities: confronting the state's authority vs. putting a message out to a wider audience. The members of this Bloc put their priorities ahead of the priorities of the majority of people at this convergence.
Respect for diversity of tactics is a two-way street. Members of the black bloc generally harbour a disrespect for activists who do not use such risky tactics, often viewing other more peaceful activists as less committed.
Last week we saw a week's worth of peaceful protests that we're getting good media attention completely overshadowed by the story of Saturday's smash and grab.
We saw the same thing play out on a smaller scale during the Olympics convergence: numerous actions in the lead-up getting wide media attention until the window at the Bay came down. Then the story was about the Black Bloc and the messages that others worked so hard to get out were lost and forgotten.
What gets me, what REALLY gets me, is that as a movement, WE RECOGNISE that these tactics discredit and marginalise us as a whole, to the extent of trying to blame them on "agent provocateurs", Police plants, or "a tiny minority". Yet we continue to welcome those who use these tactics because of a pressure to respect the diversity of tactics. Some groups such as labour are smart enough to distance themselves, grass-roots groups generally are not.
Sorry, The Black Bloc Fucked us last Saturday. I can't sit on the fence about it any longer.
Anarchy vs Fascism
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Thu, 07/01/2010 - 19:39.
As I think most people can now see, and as through-out history, the most effective defence against active fascism is anarchy.
blah blah fucking blah
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Fri, 07/02/2010 - 00:52.
The pigs are laughing their asses off knowing we're going CSI on the videos for the next 9 months. The 9-11 Truth wing nuts will have to start a sub-committee for the G20 "conspiracy". You fucking middle class liberals...
I'm shaking my head.
Mostly because it will be alleged that I'm a pig, and I'm trying to "cover up the conspiracy". Well to add to the disinformation, I'd like to start a conspiracy: "the liberal pacifist conspiracy to blame all militant action during protests on agent provocateurs", implemented to swallow the cold hard fact that the liberal left props up an illusion of democracy in this country with their peace rallies and their voting booths.
word
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Sun, 07/04/2010 - 04:35.
big ups to the comment above.
IF any government agency had any real conspiratorial part in this, I imagine it was simply some analyst somewhere working for an intelligence agency realizing that you can merely -suggest- that the cops had infiltrated the black bloc. Since the liberals are already looking for any excuse to shut down the bloc, they will jump on this idea and run with it. Cost: extremely low. benefit: well, see for yourself. I find this scenario somewhat more likely than the conspiracy theory that has gained so much attention.
Considering the "simplest answer is often the right one" thesis, however, it is likely that the cops had no part in planning these allegations, had no unusually developed or extensive undercover activity, and are simply laughing their asses off right now at how effective we are at shooting ourselves and our potential allies in the foot... going so far as to call protesters cops for engaging in property destruction. I can only imagine that if some group were to go so far as to take up arms in the struggle at this point the liberals would probably accuse them of being top canadian government officials. Perhaps the most effective counter-revolutionaries are to be found right here on the left, marching in protests and doing the job of police for them.
Of course regardless of what happened it is our response that matters. Even if the bloc had been extensively infiltrated, it wouldnt matter if we were able to put up a united front. The cops would be out a few cars, some nasty business' would be out some windows, and if we weren't busy critisizing eachother like crazy, we'd be winning, infiltrated bloc or not. As it stands we're losing, because we're at eachother's throats (or more accurately everyone is at the bloc's throat).
Of course I for one can't say that I'm particularly surprised that this conspiracy theory has gained so many adherants- anarchism has not magicaly become un-demonized in mainstream culture, therefore this kind of negative, and ridiculous attention, should be expected. Lots of people still don't like or understand anarchists, pure and simple.
The G20 Is A Conspiracy FACT!
Submitted by Anon Outside of Toronto (not verified) on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 11:14.
What's sad is that all the debate is centred around this stupid cop car and who is to blame for trashing it. Unless the cops put it out as bait (unlikely, but certainly not impossible) it is the most meaningless event of the entire Summit. Well, except for the actual Summit itself. Did anybody notice if anything actually even came out of the official Summit?
Concentrating on the car incident is idiotic and counterproductive.
First, it wipes out any chance that the political and social issues everybody was supposed to be there for will be discussed. It will all be about this stupid car incident and the stupid video will be played on a tape loop while "experts" talk about how "evil" protestors are. All the Left can do is to cling to conspiracy theories.
But some people think that being able to smash a cop car was some kind of "victory". People who believe that should buy a old cop car, put some flashing lights on it, and beat it to hell in their backyard while screaming "Victory!" Just like doing it for real, it's great therapy, but otherwise useless. However, you won't get arrested for doing it in your backyard.
"We smashed up one of their cars!" Oh yeah, Einstein, Mission Accomplished!
The reality is that the Cops easily won the war on the ground. Concentrating on this damn car obscures the fact that around a thousand people, the vast majority of which did absolutely nothing, were snatched, beaten and falsely imprisoned. Many will be intimidated into pleading guilty, will be "carefully watched" from now on and their names will appear on countless secret databases. These days, that's all it takes to find yourself in a torture prison.
That's the real story on the violence. The cops dished it out and the various aftereffects will last for years. This is how it almost always unfolds.
But the REAL story is on the REAL battlefield; the public's puny little mind. On that battlefield, the Powers That Be wiped the floor with the protestors. Despite the EGREGIOUS actions of the authorities, the OBSCENE price tag for inflicting the abuses and the fact that these facts are widely known, the majority of the public still sides with the oppressor, not the victims.
The newspaper headline essentially reads "After An Initial Setback, The Good Guys Won."
Concentrating on a burning car and some smashed windows makes all protestors look like violent criminals, which is all the Powers That Be ever wanted. As long as protestors look like mindless criminals, the public will always side with the authorities and the protestors' issues will be swept under the rug. The public will never side with anything that is associated with shit getting smashed because they worry that the protestors will smash their shit next. They'd rather suffer under their current rulers than live in the chaos they associate with protestors.
Let me say that I have a decent grasp of "capital A" Anarchy. I also cheer for the anarchist groups when they fight back with the cops. Protestors should fight back more often instead of just standing there and getting their heads smashed in by thugs. But even I still don't understand the anarchist groups, their tactics, or what they think they are accomplishing. If you can't win me over, you can't win anybody over.
Reminder
Submitted by Tim McSorley on Mon, 07/12/2010 - 11:34.
Just a reminder that we emphasize keeping discussions civil and clear of mysoginistic, sexist or otherwise offensive attacks. If a comment you posted was deleted, this is why.
Offensive attacks? Like the
Submitted by Anon Outside of Toronto (not verified) on Tue, 08/31/2010 - 16:26.
Offensive attacks? Like the ones the pigs put down on Democracy in Toronto?
Given the very content of the article itself, "keeping it civil" seems a pretty difficult task.
"As I think most people can
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Thu, 07/15/2010 - 02:07.
"As I think most people can now see, and as through-out history, the most effective defence against active fascism is anarchy."
So what you are saying is that if I have a really nasty pack of rats in my house, what I really need is something like a mongoose, or other nasty predator to get rid of them. I see.
How's about using something crazy like reason as a defense against both fascism and anarchy?
Good post. I mostly disagree with everything you've said, but I think you're mostly bang on here.
THIS ARTICLE IS AN OPINION OF AN INDIVIDUAL
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto (not verified) on Tue, 07/20/2010 - 14:17.
I KNOW ITS NOT THE ISSUE AT HAND BUT SOME OF YOU HAVE WRITTEN " HOW COULD THE MEDIA COOP PUBLISH THIS ARTICLE "
WELL IF YOU READ THE FIRST SENTENCE AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE YOU WOULD SEE;
'Blog posts are the work of individual contributors, reflecting their thoughts, opinions and research. "
SO JUST FOR THE RECORD THIS ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED BY AN INDEPENDENT MEDIA PERSON WHO WRITES FOR THE MEDIA COOP AS A BLOGER
AND THIS ARTICLE DOESNT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OPINION OF THE MEDIA COOP
THANK YOU
AND I AM AN INDIVIDUAL NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE MEDIA COOP IN ANYWAY!
Why Debunk Rebick?
Submitted by Anon Outside of Toronto (not verified) on Tue, 08/31/2010 - 16:20.
Why bother debunking Judy Rebick’s opinion? Evidence suggests she’s wrong, but so what?
The cops and secret police aren’t above sacrificing cars to excuse forcibly putting down dissent. They admitted to having a billion dollar security budget. What’s one piddling little cop car in a billion dollar budget? Hell, some of the fascists involved wouldn’t mind if actual cops got smashed and burned. Like flying planes into buildings, it would provide an excuse for an all out war on dissent and the public would mindlessly back it.
People need to realize what the Powers That Be already know. The fight isn’t won on the ground. The fight is won in the tiny, barely functional, minds of the public. The public will side with whoever best represents their simplistic, bourgeois, notions of right and wrong. The public sees hooligans dressed in black smashing stuff and rushes to the side of the oppressors without a moment’s thought. The corporately owned media sure as hell isn’t going to dig to give them the whole truth. It’s their job to avoid doing that.
Since the 60's (probably earlier) spy agencies and police have been infiltrating dissident groups; spying on them, sabotaging them, and getting them to fight amongst themselves. They routinely use tactics ranging from the dubious to the criminal. Infiltration, harassment and preemptive arrests are among them. These two guys were snatched up by police over 200 kms away from the Toronto Summit, jailed for a day, and criminally charged for simply putting up anti-G20 posters beside posters for garage sales and missing pets. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/06/17/14420391.html
There is no length authorities won’t go to criminalize dissent and give it a PR black eye. If the authorities don’t care about the destruction and suffering their policies create, why would they care about a few cars, storefronts, or even half the city getting smashed? All they care about is long term image. They know they can Black-wash all dissenters with just a couple of acts of mindless vandalism. It will excuse any massive crackdown, which they are more than capable of doing. That’s why traps and “agent provocateurs” are so important.
I’m sure every secret police outfit in the world wants as many agents as they can get into as many protest groups as possible. As mentioned, Montebello is an example of infiltration. Infiltrating more mainstream groups may be easier and more effective for spying on regular citizens and dragging mainstream groups into violence at protests. That’s why they do it. However, to claim they don’t infiltrate anarchist groups overlooks a few things.
First, spy agencies have essentially unlimited budgets. They don’t have to worry about wasting resources. Just look at the recent Washington Post article about the bloated US security establishment. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/ Who cares if you waste time putting an agent provocateur in a group that doesn’t have to be encouraged to cause trouble?
Besides, most of what these people do is a complete waste of time and money anyway. Nearly all domestic spying is done on ordinary people for merely holding “dangerous” ideas, ideas that don’t conform with the ones The Powers That Be want them to have. After a while, it gets boring for people who joined the Surveillance Complex to play Spy vs Spy to sit and sift through months of surveillance on soccer moms who want pesticides banned. It’s far more exciting infiltrating groups like the ominous, evil, Black Block. Then there’s the “street cred” angle. Anarchist groups are the “dangerous, arch-enemy" of the establishment. As such, more status points get awarded for infiltrating them.
Spy agencies are VERY competitive and hate sharing. That’s part of why 9/11 happened. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if there are as many plants in some anarchist groups as there are real members. When infiltrators discover spies from rivals agencies, they probably kick them out to gain leverage within the infiltrated group and within the spy community itself! Sounds crazy, but this is a insane world.
Remember, surveillance has little to do with providing security. It’s about exercising dominance and control over regular citizens and giving the appearance that you’re providing security. Infiltrating anarchist groups does both and is perfectly acceptable to society at large, the real target.
The site for the Toronto local of The Media Co-op has been archived and will no longer be updated. Please visit the main Media Co-op website to learn more about the organization.