Toronto Media Co-op
Local Independent News
Can you support independent journalists with $5? donate today!
Chronicles of Rebick: The Real G20 Police Conspiracy To Divide Social Movements
Blog posts reflect the views of their authors.
Warrior atop police vehicle, Kanehsatake / Oka Crisis 1990, photo by Tom Hanson, Canadian Press
Chronicles of Rebick: The Real G20 Police Conspiracy To Divide Social Movements
By Oshipeya
Coast Salish Territory, Vancouver, Canada
July 1, 2010
Since my last article debunking long-time Toronto activist Judy Rebick's publicly promoted conspiracy theory that the Toronto police allowed the black bloc to run amok to justify the billion dollar G20 security budget, new information has come to my attention.
Vancouver No One Is Illegal activist Sozan Savehilaghi, who was in Toronto for the main day of action, told The Georgia Straight, “we were very lucky. We missed several times, by seconds or by minutes, police surrounding protesters and arresting them one by one. We had a very tightly woven affinity group that was able sort of come out of those situations.”
“And as we walked down Bay Street we realized there were no side streets. If they wanted to, they could block both ends of Bay Street and then we would be locked in. At that moment, when we got to the end of Bay Street, we decided it was a bit of a set-up and that we wanted to disperse at that point. So we backtracked to Queen and Bay,” said Savehilaghi
http://www.straight.com/article-331968/vancouver/vancouver-activist-recalls-fear-excitement-g20-protests-toronto
This indicates that rather than allowing the confrontational break-away march to do what and go where it wanted, the police may have been trying to set up an easy mass arrest scenario near the fence, where they could justify doing so in order to protect the summit site.
The final video report on the G20 resistance by The Stimulator of SubMediaTV also shows police running away from the black bloc at the scene of the police cars burned in the financial district, again dispelling the myth spun by Rebick, and repeated by activist Naomi Klein, that the cops allowed the black bloc to torch them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLopuQUgsWM
As The Stimulator points out, unlike anarchists, police have a chain of command that is subject to breakdown and inefficiency, as was shown in Seattle at the World Trade Organization riot of 1999 and St. Paul's Republican National Convention riot in 2008. Cops on the ground may have been able to respond in the moment more quickly to stop the black bloc only to be stymied by the chain of command. The flow of information from the street up to the command level and back again takes time.
A Toronto cop admitted to the Sun newspaper, "The orders went from engage to, no, don't engage to engage to, no, don't engage. It was an absolute shambles. Everyone was talking over each other on the radio. Nobody seemed to know what to do. It was just a mess."
http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/joe_warmington/2010/06/30/14564416.html
Toronto's police chief told the media that use of tear gas was purposely limited in the downtown core since it's effect is indiscriminate. At the Seattle WTO riot and the Free Trade Area of the America's riots in Quebec City in 2001, the massive use of tear gas infuriated otherwise uninvolved locals, even spurring some on to join the fighting against the police or provide aid to the black bloc. Tear gas was mostly unnecessary for dispersing and mass arresting the peaceful in Toronto, since they don't fight back.
Another theory that didn't receive as much air play was that the police may have been mass arresting and brutalizing peaceful crowds as punishment for and discouragement from supporting or providing cover for the black bloc, even if the cover was provided inadvertently. The cops themselves said they were arresting people for failing to disassociate from the black bloc, although that isn't a crime of course.
In practical terms, the cops had to clear the streets. They have never particularly cared how “peaceful” people are. It's the refusal to follow police orders and clear out that provokes the police to use whatever means necessary to force people out of the streets.
The State and their police allow for peaceful protest in today's Canadian society. But always within limits. It's not so much how peaceful or violent a protest is that concerns police and their bosses but more so how disruptive it is to business as usual.
In May in Vancouver , a peaceful protest was violently attacked by police because it physically blocked a G8 university summit bus that was carrying delegates, not because a black bloc had made mayhem beforehand.
http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/photo/3468
Those who cherish rights granted by the State, such as the right to protest, shouldn't be surprised when the same State limits and temporarily revokes them, since that is the right of the State, its citizens are its subjects and their rights are its domain.
The State doesn't grant rights out of good will but as a concession to stave-off further struggle and conflict. Free speech in public in Vancouver for instance was banned in 1909 and only won back through years of struggle by the Industrial Workers of the World, involving protests, riots and repression.
This reality behind rights and their origin in struggles using a diversity of tactics was glossed-over and distorted by Judy Rebick during her speech at the solidarity rally against repression in front of Toronto police headquarters on June 28.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z796VqwzwYU
As The Stimulator also pointed out, Rebick's praise of the suffragettes is hypocritical since they broke windows and more as part of their campaign.
In addition, Rebick's claim that indigenous warriors in Toronto showed that we don't need confrontation and violence was almost as preposterous as her assertion that peaceful protest stopped the Vietnam war.
In fact, what primarily stopped the war was the Vietcong guerrillas and the worldwide resistance it inspired, including rioting as much as peaceful protest, sabotage and desertion within the US military itself, and perhaps also the many urban Black riots against police that had to be put down by military force in the US during the war.
Closer to home, indigenous warriors and communities have been the most consistent of all social movements in Canada in their use of direct action, sabotage, riot and armed confrontation in defense of their struggle, as most symbolized by the Oka Crisis 20 years ago, which involved all of these elements of conflict, as well as protest and peaceful vigils.
A warrior, of course, is someone who engages in war. The warriors who sabotaged power lines and bridges and blocked roads and railway lines helped limit the repressive capabilities of the Canadian military, while the peace camps also kept the issue a focal point for indigenous people and the public eye in cities across the country.
Rebick and Klein's G20 police car conspiracy theory is defeatist and divisive. The real police conspiracy is to divide social movements, to smear direct action and the black bloc and separate it from its supporters and potential supporters, to get protesters to police themselves and each other.
Nobody has to like or agree with the black bloc tactic or refrain from criticizing its use. But nobody has to make up conspiracy theories or lies about it either. Police infiltrate all movements and nobody should be called police agents without conclusive proof. We can criticize specific actions or methods without attributing them to police influence, especially since we know that the police themselves promote false accusations (known as bad-jacketing or snitch-jacketing).
Maybe the G20 summit and its host city of Toronto should have been as secure as Area 51. And maybe 2Pac really is still alive and was part of the black bloc in Toronto. We may never know the whole truth. But what we do know is that diverse movements and diversity within movements requires diverse tactics and we can work towards being in harmony with each other without always having to agree 100 percent with each other.
About the poster
1304 words
Comments
Black Bloc = Police agitators
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Fri, 07/02/2010 - 04:50.
The Black Bloc are completely controlled by the police. There was undercover police leading the so called "Black Bloc" march.
hahaha. ya know what - there
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Sat, 07/03/2010 - 01:55.
hahaha.
ya know what - there was probably tons of undercover cops in all of the demos. some of the only times i've seen them ousted was when they have been ousted by folks dressed in black. sorta funny that....
usually these cops are part of what folks call a 'snatch-squad'. i have seen this play out a lot... and ya know what.. i have only seen folks dressed in black be on top of that shit in order to protect other demonstrators.
this black bloc = cops conspiracy stuff is getting really, really annoying and is just low down shit talk.
The REAL purpose behind the Sunday mass arrests
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Fri, 07/02/2010 - 08:37.
With activists calling for a Summer of Discontent it was clear the illegal mass arrests we to quell legitimate peaceful dissent before the season starts.
Clearly it was to tie up masses of people in trial dates and court ordered conditions to not be seen in any protests.
Is this part of the neo-Con neo-Liberal agendas of Harper, McGuinty and Miller leading up to this year's municipal election and next year's Ontario provincial and federal election? It sure looks like an attempt to silence the public on the real issues we care about so it doesn't interfere with these elections. Shame!
Gwalgen Geordie Dent
division runs both ways
Submitted by Mick Sweetman on Fri, 07/02/2010 - 13:18.
Rebick and Klein's G20 police car conspiracy theory is defeatist and divisive. The real police conspiracy is to divide social movements, to smear direct action and the black bloc and separate it from its supporters and potential supporters, to get protesters to police themselves and each other.
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories and think that painting the black bloc as being nothing but police agent provocateurs is disingenuous. That said, I think it's important to point out your article is ignoring the fact that both Klein and Rebick have signed the Toronto call : No more police state tactics which explicitly demands:
1. The immediate release of all those detained
2. A full campaign to defend the civil rights of those facing charges arising from this extraordinary policing regime, especially those facing excessive charges and/or punitive bail conditions that criminalize, limit mobility, and curtail rights in the long term.
3. An independent public inquiry into police actions during the summit, including disclosure on the role of police infiltrators leading up to and during events, and the chain of command for the extraordinary crackdown on legal rights and protests.
4. An end to the targeting of anarchists by the Conservative government and the police.
5. The resignation of Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair
I think that both Klein and Rebick are showing principled solidarity and that it is a credit to them that they are willing to publicly defend the G20 political prisoners despite differences of strategy and tactics that they might have with some of them.
Disagree with Rebick and Klein all you want on politics and strategy, I know I do, but don't try and undermine the support that they are giving to our political prisoners. That can divide social movements as much as anything that is said about the Black Bloc.
Principled Solidarity?
Submitted by stimulator on Fri, 07/02/2010 - 19:03.
Rebick herself suggested that the police should have arrested the militants on Saturday. How is that solidarity? That type of collaboration with the state should not be tolerated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iaG1H0pDxY
As for Klein, where's the solidarity with the fierceness and braveness of the folks who confronted the power structure? In her speech she seems to parrot the same garbage as Rebick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkQK9uP8ok0
I am all for condemning the police, but making such statements, that people should have been arrested does not help those organizers who are still in jail. It adds more "proof' to the legal arsenal of the state against the resistance. Rebick and Klein fucked up and they need to apologize for it.
I don't disagree with you,
Submitted by Mick Sweetman on Sun, 07/04/2010 - 10:18.
I don't disagree with you, and on re-reading the opinion article I want to note that Oshipeya didn't call for Rebick or Klein to stop giving support to the movement to free all political prisoners. I was reacting to another post on mediacoop.ca that did seem to suggest that.
I'm not going to defend Rebick and Klien's positions. I don't agree with them any more than you do. I think it's good to criticize their liberal analysis of the police as the cops were "doing their goddamn jobs" and did in fact target and preemptively arrest organizers and militants before the Saturday protests.
Hopefully such state abductions will be found to have been unlawful, but I'm not holding my breath. I also doubt that Klein or Rebick would ask anyone to shut the fuck up about any criticism of their positions.
That said, is there a place for such prominent people, complete with their faulty analysis, to give support to the movement to free our political prisoners? Does such support strengthen the movement to free them? Do they have a place speaking at solidarity rallies and signing statements demanding the release of all political prisoners and an end to the targeting of anarchists?
I would argue that they do add to building a broader base of support for the release of our prisoners and should be welcomed voices that speak to frankly a larger constituency than the far-left and anarchist movement currently has.
That said, it is our job to ensure that the messages of anarchists and anti-capitalists, especially those of the political prisoners still being held, are also heard loud and clear in the solidarity movement to free them and get all the charges dropped.
Confronting the power
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Sat, 07/10/2010 - 04:41.
Confronting the power structure? The Black Bloc wasn't anywhere near the power structure, as that structure was behind a giant fence. Not sure what you think is so brave about breaking store windows, since, as far as I know, no one has ever been attacked or oppressed by a window.
The Black Bloc has an inflated sense of self importance, always congratulating themselves on their heroic and courageous deeds that cops let them get away with. Their overblown triumphalist rhetoric makes you think they just saved the world once again from capitalism by overturning a newspaper box, setting a dumptser on fire or smashing a bank window, completely unaware that the summitt continued unabated and finished on schedule all the while world leaders paused for photo-ops.
The windows were quickly boarded up using more wood from dwindling forests, more police cars were ordered from auto plants and parts dealers making iron ore mines and steel mills busier, while more department store window glass was ordered from factories who ordered from their suppliers creating more demand for raw resources, driving up the stocks of commodity companies which stimulated further economic activity that addied to the GDP of the local and global economy.
More cops were hired part-time, and likely retained on 'reserve duty' . The G8/20 leaders did whatever it was they do, and the world will go on exactly as it did before the summitt. In a month or two the Black Bloc circus will be long forgotten as it gets pushed out of the spotlight by the next media attraction in the Spectacle.
And the Black Bloc (like US Presidents who send troops to foreign lands) will keep spinning their PR about how they are "winning" and about the "bravery" and "courage" of those "fighting for our freedom" and "standing up to the power structure". Nothing changed, no message was conveyed (just a lot of confusing mixed messages, including a sign that said 'Free Marc Emery') and everyone had their stereotypes of anarchists confirmed through the media.
And nothing will change as long as mindless nonviolent symbolic rituals performed by naive cultists living within their own marginalized ideological vacuum-chamber have no practical strategy, method or philosophy for dealing with how to dismantle totalitarian capitalism.
Who is trying to divide social movements?
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Fri, 07/02/2010 - 16:58.
From reading your article, my clear conclusion is that it is you, yourself, who is most guilty of this tactic.
You appear to be advocating blac bloc tactics/ violence. I totally disagree with that option. So do 99% of Canadians. I have seen 40 years of protests - from the civil rights movement, the women's rights movement, Vietnam War protests, anti-nuclear protests, to many many more over the years. Violence, in my opinion, never did anything except to divide, discredit and increase the heavy boot of repression from those in power during those years. Okay. That's my personal opinion, obviously one you disagree with. Fine.
But don't undermine the incredibly valuable support and knowledge, as well as experience & outreach abilities, of Canadians who align themselves with Rebick, Klein, et al. That's counter-productive, divisive & just really tacky.
countering dis-information is not anti-solidarity
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Fri, 07/02/2010 - 17:10.
Rebick and Klein are are supporting this statement --I doubt their signatures hinge on everyone shutting up about their contributions to the 'the black block are police' trending topic.
I'm sure they have the ovaries to withstand some debate about public statements they have made -even if it it scathing.
While this statement is a step forward, there is a massive disinfomration campaign going on about anarchists, the black block ,and the direct action march. Both Rebick and Klien made statements that fed into it and those statements need to be countered.
grow the fuck up
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Fri, 07/02/2010 - 20:41.
this is childish as well as just plain wrongheaded
From what I see, the black
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Sat, 07/03/2010 - 00:31.
From what I see, the black bloc was no more a movement as it was sensationialism and focal point for the MSM, why were the cop cars left in the middle of the streets? Why were they stripped? I watched CBC, CTV,
guess what, they never once mentioned what the peaceful protesters were advocating, no they wanted, needed, to focus upon the destruction 100 people were causing. It's extremely frustrating watching Mansbridge (Bilderberger), condemn all actions of protesters when it's a tiny portion of the story.
the corporate media pretty
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Sat, 07/03/2010 - 02:01.
the corporate media pretty much wouldn't have covered just a peaceful protest. they never do. playing the media is just sort of stupid anyways, but i think it is unfair to suggest militant street demos "take away" from other coverage when in fact there likely would have been little to none otherwise...
News Flash! Capital owns media!
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Sat, 07/03/2010 - 02:50.
This might shock some of the more "sensible" folks reading these posts, but only really, really, rich people own the mainstream media. As a result, these really, really, rich people tend to also own, or have stake in, the very ventures of exploitation, slavery, and poverty that the G20 provide state assistance for, and people purport to be protesting.
I want you inhale deeply, I want all your neurons firing for this next bit. It might shock you, that if the same interests that own and control the media, own or have stake in the interests that the G20 conspire to implement, that the owners of mainstream media *might* just not speak out against their own interests. I know, shocking. How dare they! What ever happened to freedom of the press, and blah fucking blah.
The mainstream media is NEVER going to honestly discuss the issues, black bloc or no. If the bloc weren't there, the police would find some other pretext for mass violence, as well as some other point of "discrediting" the movement. This whole spectacle would fall apart were it not for persistent, targeted violence of the state.
Futher, I think it's important to strengthen ties with people who aren't able to take more militant action, or aren't necessarly ready to now. There is however, NO alliance to be had with folks who think the police "should have arrested the bloc right from the beginning", as Rebick does. The defeatist vision of an invincible police force involved in conspiracy, in no small part due to the indoctrination by the beast, can be forgiven and discussed. People who think that those willing to directly attack capital should be arrested by the state however, cannot be forgiven. While Rebick demands an end to targeting of anarchists in one breathe, she demands state action against the block from the other. So really, the end of targeting anarchists, that won't fight back.These past few days, the vicious assaults during the summit, the sexual assaults in the detention centres, and the underreaction of the left to them makes me realize why some will not forgo their right as an animal to self-defense. If they had to rely on armchair liberal "veteran" activists, we would be getting stomped on, raped, and jailed for a thousand vigils to come.
and I saw once again the famous words of Fred Hampton: "Let me just say: Peace to you, if you're willing to fight for it."
Fighting for peace...
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Sun, 07/04/2010 - 09:31.
Fighting for peace is like f%@&ing for virginity.
The biggest divisions I see in this movement come from stupid articles like this one and those who bully their way using violence through those who want peace, without respecting them and their right to be peaceful. Talks about respect for "diversity of tactics" forget that violent actions do NOT respect the actions of those who choose to be peaceful. They simply bulldoze over them and then tell them to be silent or else face threat of articles like these.
If this protest has been completely peaceful and the police repression still happened-- you could have turned thouands more to the cause. Instead-- now all I hear is how justified the police were because some handful of people decide to smash things, and turned more people away from joining in the next march. It's bullshit and I for one, am extremely tired of being bullied by the black bloc and diversity of tactics crowd.
Front Page of Today's Star
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Sat, 07/03/2010 - 10:30.
Dividing what little we've got
Submitted by gabriel sinduda on Sat, 07/03/2010 - 11:52.
This is no time to break ranks with those prominent "liberal veteran activists" who are, at least, willing to come forward and speak out against the bullshit. Sure, their analysis will not always uphold our more stringent values, especially when it comes to matters of ownership and property. They are proud property owners, and members of the coordinator class, after all (see: http://www.zcommunications.org/parecon-and-anarcho-syndicalism-an-interv...). So it logically must follow that much of their analysis will assume this basic allegiance to the value of property. Accept that. For now.
But for those of you who haven't noticed, we are currently facing our most phenomenal threat: What little ground we have achieved by years of struggle is fast being defeated by an INFO-WAR. By that I mean that the mainstream and predominant media forces are doing a GRAND JOB of demonizing protest and criminalizing dissidence. And all this conveniently ramped up at the same time that AUSTERITY MEASURES are planned to coincide with a pending era of ECONOMIC DEPRESSION that will have most of us remembering this recent wave of "recession" as the good old days.
As times get tougher, those activists will have some tough decisions to make. They will have to reconsider their own current investments in the corrupt machinery (investment in portfolios and pensions, property, corporate media, corporatized educational institutions, etc.) and identify their true allegiance. But this same matter applies to US ALL. Are we using the banks? Are we flying in planes for travel? Or addicted to road-trips? Are we relying on the TELECOMS to provide our internet connections? How much of our daily diets are unnecessarily oil-dependent and/or exorbitant, ie. Do you eat kiwi's or avocados (organic or otherwise)? For that matter, how many of us are sucking it up every year and paying TAXES to support this ongoing bullshit??
My point, ultimately--we are all of us currently occupying different places in the SPECTRUM of the left. Our total range even complete (from most radical and revolutionary down to armchair liberal and champagne socialist) still represents but a rabbit turd up against the stinking heap of elephant dung that makes up the conservative and right.
This is no time for splitting hairs, no time to chase away our allies. If you have to vent then take a good look at your own habits and class conditioning, there might be some work we can all do there.
Are you suggesting that...
Submitted by stimulator on Sat, 07/03/2010 - 14:13.
...We let these so called "allies" trash our comrades in the public sphere and remain silent?
No, not at all suggesting that we remain silent
Submitted by gabriel sinduda on Sun, 07/04/2010 - 10:59.
But rather I'm recommending that we hash out our differences in such a way that we don't isolate and divide.
I'm sure many of us in this very diverse and varied "movement" have either direct or secondary contacts with these people. I'm sure that by now they are already in debate and discussion over these matters. Probably over bottles of fine wine on College Street, but nonetheless...
I'm saying too that my experience tells me that lashing out (verbally, by written word, or otherwise) is often a tell-tale sign of self disingenuity...those matters that are most likely to affect us emotionally and cause knee-jerk reactions usually speak to our own inadequacies, in some veiled or not-so-veiled way.
I myself have long been outspoken in my criticism regarding the likes of Judy Rebick. You'll find I'm on the record for doing so. And yet here I am now, not defending her but defending her role in our common cause. Because despite the feeling of solidarity we might feel when surrounded by our comrades on the streets last week, I know that we are ultimately isolated and few. More so than ever, after this latest assault on dissent.
At this rate, do we trash Maude Barlowe and the Council of Canadians too? For being too capital "L" liberal or too old and stodgy in their critique of capitalism?
Further, consider Judy's appearance on CP24 in context: While we don't necessarily agree with her analysis (yet I for one witnessed a different scenario than the one you aired with cops running from their cars--two cars left abandoned for no good reason even while the kops held control of the street...??) she still does provide a generally negative critique of the police, and a mostly positive critique of the protest.
Her appeal reaches out to those viewers who, let's face it, could NEVER accept the so-called "violence" of property destruction anyway. And yet her argument provides a counter-argument to most of the hegemenous bullshit that these people are digesting by most other predominant news accounts. It gives them something to chew on, at least. To consider that maybe there are other points of view, to be considered.
I see where you are coming from
Submitted by stimulator on Sat, 07/10/2010 - 14:05.
In terms of giving something for the general public to "chew on." But the part that I just can't get over is the whole "arrest the black bloc" and continuing the dichotomy of good protester / bad protester. In this case, good militant / bad militant. This type of talk has set off a "witch hunt" in which people are now suggesting that the next time the bloc comes around, they should be unmasked and handed to the pigs
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/statica/2010/07/g8g20-communiqu%C3%A9-hu...
This type of talk also makes it harder for those facing charges vandalism, as a "respected" activist denounces them on TV. Just how good is that going to look in court? This is not knee jerk. This type of post-analysis and debunking and calling out is absolutely necessary, not only because it shows that facts. But also because it creates a "record" so that people who may be looking back at what happened years from now, can see how so called "allies" behaved when push came to shove.
did you read the article or just the headline?
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Sat, 07/03/2010 - 17:20.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/831506--store-o...
Did you even read the full article?
One "independent" (nice framing), was a jewelry store.
*cough* *blood diamonds*. Sorry, i had something shiny and coated in blood stuck in my throat.
Many of the other independents I heard about were porn shacks. Because you know, rape films, quite like the pigs that sexually assaulted young women at the detention centre, just aren't "worthy targets" according to you champagne liberals.
If this is the best the mainstream can do, I think the targeting was for the most part remarkably accurate.
Talking some sense
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Sat, 07/03/2010 - 17:22.
I've helped organize numerous black blocs over the years and participated in many of them. These articles by Oshipeya debunking nonsense about the police controlling the black bloc are very factual and helpful. I've observed police operations at numerous protests. The police often don't know what they are doing and they do weird stuff. Let's remember that these cops may have been through a few hours of training, but they all have little experience in controlling protests.
The police do send undercover officers and informants into protest groups. They send them into any kind of protest group. As far as the police see it, any kind of left wing activist, no matter how nonviolent and peaceful they may be, are potential terrorists. The police infiltrate for two reasons: 1) to collect information, and 2) to be in place to make arrests if laws are broken. The police do *not* use agent provocateurs, for two simple reasons: 1) it's illegal, and 2) they want to avoid any public scandal. Based on my experience and from talking to other activists, the police never use provocateurs.
When the police use tear gas, that means our side has won. The police don't want to use tear gas, for two main reasons: 1) they don't want to piss off and annoy non-protester citizens, and 2) tear gas makes for bad media, it shows that the police have lost control of policing protests, which is an image they want to avoid at all costs.
Re: Talking some sense
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Sun, 07/04/2010 - 07:39.
Are you nuts or maybe a cop? Have you forgotten, Montebello?
I remember Montebello
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Mon, 07/05/2010 - 18:10.
And I also remember that it was the black bloc protestors who outed the 3 SQ posing as black bloc protestors. It seems that many black bloc formations have a better sense of who is and who is not a cop that many above-ground, open groups organizing dissent.
Many valuable points in all these comments
Submitted by Michael Lessard on Sun, 07/11/2010 - 19:08.
I find most comments here and the article raise valuable points.
To summarize a few I noted :
* [article] police actions did indicate a tendency to see all protests against the G20 as delinquent and as something to be stopped;
* [article] the State thinks it can remove rights and we often have to fight to impose our rights;
* When you choose direct resistance through civil disobedience or some form of attack, you also choose to face the consequences, namely that the police has the role of arresting you. So Klein and friends are just naming the obvious logic: those committing illegal acts are those the police will normally legally attempt to arrest. It doesn't always mean the person speaking is calling for your arrest (though it can also mean that): it is just the current reality of "vandalism is something we all know the police will try to arrest you for". The purpose of Klein's message and other similar messages all over is of course to communicate to the masses that the police arrested anyone that looked like a protester or looked left-wing (I'm not even exaggerating), so hence it was logically political repression.
* We should advocate for true respect of our diversity of tactics and avoid needless insults. There is wisdom and usefulness in the various left-wing social movements and their varied actions.
Passed black block actions did not always happen like this G20. In this case, the black block action (which usually splits off from the crowd) occurred in a wide city zone that the police tried to corner, mixing everyone in the same basket. We can discuss and criticize strategy, but we of course cannot blame the vandalism for how the police treated everyone all week long, before and after the black block episode.
By the way, when the fence fell in Quebec City 2001, the 50,000 crowd that marched far away from the "security perimeter" cheered in joy at the news.
* Warning: what follows is not at all a judgment. It is meant as a rational left-wing analysis :
Breaking a window does not change the system (is not the revolution) nor create an alternative economy or lifestyle, though it is an act of rebellion. Disruptive political actions, such as the vandalism in this case, is not what determines your ideology as such: it does not make you more or less of an anarchist, socialist, revolutionary, radical, etc. I think most youth who join the black block episodes know this.
So, I feel it is time for me to move on away from these discussions, and focus on a) actions to denounce the massive repression, crimes and lies committed by the police and their politicians b) changing the world day-to-day. Cheers.
This nonsense.
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Sun, 07/11/2010 - 11:58.
"The final video report on the G20 resistance by The Stimulator of SubMediaTV also shows police running away from the black bloc at the scene of the police cars burned in the financial district, again dispelling the myth spun by Rebick, and repeated by activist Naomi Klein, that the cops allowed the black bloc to torch them."
No, the video shows the opposite: it shows about 10 police sent in to rescue the one officer who was not obeying the command to let the BB do its thing. Do you really think 20,000 police with full riot gear, tear gas, rubber bullets, sound cannons, helicopters and military planes,... would let four cop cars and blocks get vandalized by a few hundred protestors? Stop with the overinflated BB ego shit. Admit that you fucked up, rethink tactics and move on.
"The State and their police allow for peaceful protest in today's Canadian society. But always within limits. It's not so much how peaceful or violent a protest is that concerns police and their bosses but more so how disruptive it is to business as usual"- this is false. The Tamil demonstrations last year (those who don't know, they shut down a major throughfare for days and a major freeway for hours!!) disrupted much more than the G20 actions did and recieved far less police hostility. Given an excuse to shut down the Tamil protests, they would have.
"Another theory that didn't receive as much air play was that the police may have been mass arresting and brutalizing peaceful crowds as punishment for and discouragement from supporting or providing cover for the black bloc, even if the cover was provided inadvertently. The cops themselves said they were arresting people for failing to disassociate from the black bloc, although that isn't a crime of course." Then you later write: "In May in Vancouver , a peaceful protest was violently attacked by police because it physically blocked a G8 university summit bus that was carrying delegates, not because a black bloc had made mayhem beforehand."
What self contradictory bullshit! It is not all about the BB. Police arrested most people, 1100!!, while non-violently protesting far removed from BB activity and even days before and after the majore BB events. Just because police say they arrested people because of the BB doesn't mean its true. Why are you repeating the disinformation and lies put out by the cops?
"Closer to home, indigenous warriors and communities have been the most consistent of all social movements in Canada in their use of direct action, sabotage, riot and armed confrontation in defense of their struggle, as most symbolized by the Oka Crisis 20 years ago, which involved all of these elements of conflict, as well as protest and peaceful vigils."
Yes, and there is nothing wrong with civil disobediance and even property destruction in theory. But lets not be stupid and play right into the open arms of the state.
"Rebick and Klein's G20 police car conspiracy theory is defeatist and divisive. The real police conspiracy is to divide social movements, to smear direct action and the black bloc and separate it from its supporters and potential supporters, to get protesters to police themselves and each other."
No, its not conspiracy but fact. The police are trying to divide social movements by letting idiots do stupid shit. I will never police someone because I have a moral problem with what they are doing or because I respect private property or don't like direct action. But I will stop you if you don't respect the tactic agreed upon by the 10-20,000 who don't agree with your tactic and if you continue to behave as if smashing a window or burning a police car is radical and any challenge to the state what so ever. It isn't, as the g20 in toronto shows. So grow up and quit with the attempts to shortcut the real work necessary by sparking a rev through bringing the war home (you could start by reading history of movements and struggles where it is obvious that a small group of ultra-radicals have never started anything positive).
Fuck you take off your mask you authoritarian cop!
Do you know what the world conspiracy means?
Submitted by Anonymous in Toronto on Sun, 07/11/2010 - 16:29.
It doesn't mean 'not a fact'. It means people planning something secretly, that's to the detriment of others. Happens constantly. Doesn't mean every theory is true but certainly every theory is not untrue. Imperialist capitalism is basically one big conspiracy. So if you 'don't believe in conspiracies' you basically then literally believe that capitalism, authoritarianism, police, etc. are benevolent and don't do anything wrong.
shambolic & aggressive policing in genoa caused carlo's death
Submitted by dan mcquillan (not verified) on Fri, 07/16/2010 - 18:09.
regarding the toxic combination of police incompetence and aggression. you might be interested in the video OP GENOVA 2001.
this uses evidence from the police's own testimony in court to show how stupid police decisions combined with a total lack of respect for protestors' lives created the confrontation in Piazza Alimonda where Carlo Giuliani was killed.
there are many more parallels between genoa 2001 and toronto 2010...
in solidarity.
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.