The Dominion - G20

Sonic Weapon Rushed Through for G20

stephlaw — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:48:09 +0000

Calling LRAD ‘communications device’ allowed cops to skirt rules

TORONTO—The police have tried to convince the public that its Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRAD), purchased for the G8 and G20 summits, were strictly communications devices—that they weren’t to be used as weapons. But internal police intelligence reports suggest otherwise.

Outside of public messaging, the police have in fact referred to the devices as weapons, according to documents obtained by The Dominion.

“Whether you call it a weapon or a communications device, it can be used in situations where it can cause people significant hearing loss, significant pain,” said Abby Deshman, a Program Director with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA).“They can be used as weapons; they have been used as weapons in the past.”

The CCLA believes that the government should have properly tested and regulated the LRAD before putting it into use—and this would have happened if the LRAD had been designated a weapon.

The CCLA is now calling on the government to institute stronger rules on their use based on testing conducted since the summits.

Manufactured by LRAD Corporation, the devices can play recorded MP3s or be spoken into through a microphone, and they also have a built-in alert function that emits high-pitched tones.

“This non-lethal weapon can produce permanent ear damage,” reads a May 31, 2010 intelligence brief created by the G20 Joint Intelligence Group (JIG). This group consisted of the Toronto Police, Ontario Provincial Police, RCMP and Peel Region police. JIG intelligence reports were sent to various security partners, government departments and, in some cases, international and corporate partners.

A week later, the JIG issued a correction, inline with the official police messaging, stating that the LRAD “is in fact a communications device.”

Toronto Police did not respond to a request for comment on the difference between the internal documents and the public messaging about the LRAD.

A 2010 briefing note created prior to the G20 by a media relations officer with the Toronto Police detailed the police’s official position. According to the note, the LRAD is a “tool to send emergency notifications, directions for evacuations, etc.” It added that the tool will “allow police to communicate to large crowds in various languages.”

This note described the LRAD very differently from a JIG report created shortly after the September 2009 Pittsburg G20 summit.

The older report described the devices as “sound cannons” to “engage unlawful protestors,” originally developed for military purposes and was “employed against Iraqi insurgents and Somali pirates.”

The Pittsburg G20 summit was the first place these devices were used by the police, rather than by the military. “Police used the device to emit a high-pitch sound that forced demonstrators to cover their ears and withdraw,” reads the report.

“There were no reports of demonstrators attending the hospital,” the report also noted.

Despite this claim, a bystander alleging permanent hearing damage due to the LRAD is suing the city of Pittsburgh, according to a press release from the American Civil Liberties Union dated September 21, 2011.
Karen Piper, the plaintiff in this suit, was subjected to the high pitch sound of a nearby LRAD for several minutes during the protest. She got no warning before the alert started, according to the release.

“Piper immediately suffered intense pain as mucus discharged from her ear. She became nauseous and dizzy and developed a severe headache,” read the press release. “Since then, Piper has suffered from tinnitus (ringing of the ears), barotrauma, left ear pain and fluid drainage, dizziness and nausea. She still suffers from permanent nerve damage.”

Concerned about how the LRAD would be used at Toronto’s G20 Summit, the CCLA took the matter to court. A ruling was made on June 23, 2010. No injunction on the use of LRADs was granted, but a judge did order greater restriction on their use.

“Part of the reason that the LRADs were bought or deployed in a hurry was that one-time funding was available from the federal government in order to police for the G20,” said Deshman.

Using federal funds, the Toronto Police acquired four LRADs in preparation for the G8 and G20 summits. Three were the portable “100X” model and one was a larger “300X” model, which can be mounted on a vehicle or boat. On top of that, the OPP also acquired three LRADs of their own.

Alphonse MacNeil, the RCMP officer in charge of all G20 policing, approved the purchase of these LRADs. However, when it was revealed by the Globe and Mail that the RCMP does not approve of the LRAD being used for crowd control or in urban settings, pressure was placed on MacNeil by the Ministry of Public Safety to justify his actions.

“Public Safety are on me about why I supported the purchase of the LRAD for TPS and OPP,” wrote MacNeil in an internal email.

In response, MacNeil received a briefing note on the LRAD, which said that the Toronto Police Service had developed a set of guidelines for appropriate use, and that the force had already used the tool to execute a warrant. It also pointed to the Pittsburg G20 and the Vancouver Olympics as examples of other events where the LRAD had been used.

The document explained that in addition to delivering audio recordings the “alert functions can be used if necessary.” It noted that the manufacturer recommends never using it for more than two-to-five seconds. It also explained that in order to use the LRAD, police commanders on the ground would need permission from an off-site Incident Commander.

CCLA’s Deshman said the police and other law enforcement officers have to be “extremely careful” about using new technologies like the LRAD.

“We can’t just take manufacturers’ assertions about when a device is appropriate and when it should be used, because they have an interest in selling the device,” Deshman said. “What we need is our government to strongly and independently test these things.”

While the LRAD was used by Toronto Police to amplify an eviction notice at Occupy Toronto in November 2011, it wasn’t used during the G20 protests, despite the chaos on the streets of Toronto.

The CCLA was still concerned and, after the summit, pressed to have the LRAD

regulated as a weapon. The province undertook a study on the matter and a report was issued in November 2011.
The report was based on a review of literature and field tests of the device. It established the disagreement on whether the LRAD is a weapon but did not take a definitive stance on the matter. It did, however, recommend changes that could be made in how the LRAD is regulated.

The report also noted that police operating the device may also be at risk of ear damage, recommending that operators of the 300X model stand at least two meteres behind the device.

“The report indicated that the existing limits on when LRAD can be used need to be updated,” said Deshman, “so we called on the government to implement that immediately. We haven’t yet received a response.”

In recent years, police forces in Canada have been acquiring another new device, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). These miniature robotic helicopters can fit in the trunk of a car and be flown by remote control to conduct aerial surveillance. They have been deployed to assist in homicide investigations, search and rescue and to view traffic accidents from above.

The RCMP, OPP and several local police forces across Canada have acquired these devices from Canadian companies that manufacture them: Waterloo-based Aeryon and Saskatoon-based DraganFly. In August 2011, the New York Times reported that an Aeryon’s Scout model UAV was donated to Libyan rebels by an anonymous donor.

A more advanced UAV, the Predator Drone, was used by a local sheriff in North Dakota. The aircraft is normally used to patrol the US-Canada border, but in this instance was used to assist the sheriff to spy on a family and their land.

A version of the Predator Drone armed with missiles is used by both the US Air Force and the CIA. These drones are reportedly used to carry out targeted assassinations in countries such as Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“We are increasingly seeing police interest in purchasing new technologies, technologies that often have been developed in context such as military use,” said Deshman. “I think this is a trend we will continue to see as technology develops.”

Deshman points to the Taser as an example of a device that was introduced without sufficient regulations or testing. There were 26 taser-related deaths in Canada between 2003 and 2008, including the high-profile death of Robert Dziekanski. National attention on Tasers, particularly after police Tasered and killed Dziekanski at the Vancouver International Airport in 2007, led to deeper scrutiny of the device and its regulation.

Deshman said Canada should learn from this lesson.

“It was probably the worst possible way for them to introduce a new technology,” said Deshman. “What we should be doing is having a lot of public discussion about new technologies, about the benefits and drawbacks.”

Tim Groves is a freelance journalist and investigative researcher based in Toronto.

LRAD - Sonic weapon

Scoring for Information

stephlaw — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:32:45 +0000

Police infiltration tactics viewed as a violation of women's bodies and rights

TORONTO—With the rise of modern technologies, most of us are at least peripherally aware that our lives are becoming increasingly monitored. We casually brush away the uncanny feelings conjured by Google ads culling search terms from our emails, and gently ignore the bubble cameras that watch the perimeters of offices, schools and public spaces in metropolitan areas. But state surveillance penetrates even more intimate aspects of life than your email inbox and your child’s schoolyard.

The use of sexual deception in intelligence gathering is neither new nor uncommon, said Gary T. Marx, professor emeritus from MIT, Harvard University and University of Colorado, and author of Protest and Prejudice and Undercover: Police Surveillance in America.

While agencies generally have rules against sexual deception in intelligence gathering, and will be careful not to document instances of it, supervisors will imply that agents should use sex in order to gain intelligence. The secretive nature of undercover operations presents a roadblock to any kind of future accountability, he said.

“What's the difference between having sex through threat or coercion and having sex through lies?”

Recent stories of police infiltration appearing in the news have drawn this scenario out of the realm of James Bond fantasies and into public discourse.

Eight women in the United Kingdom are currently pursuing a human rights lawsuit against the Metropolitan Police, after they discovered that five of their former romantic partners were undercover agents. These cops were assigned to spy on environmental activists starting in the mid-1980's. At least two of these police spies have fathered children with an activist while undercover, and one of them, Jim Boyling, even married the mother, according to Britain’s Guardian newspaper.

In Canada, allegations have arisen against a police officer who had sexual relations with women in the community he infiltrated during the lead-up to the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto, activists in southern Ontario told The Dominion.

Shailagh Keaney, an activist and independent journalist in Ontario who knew the G20 infiltrators, said that gendered biases were at play in the tactics used by infiltrators, as well as in the actions of uniformed police during the protests.

“Women's bodies are perceived as less violent but more violate-able," she said. "Men were generally beaten more brutally [during the G20] but women were routinely strip searched without even having their pockets checked.”

For marginalized women whose communities have historically been harmed by governmental powers, the thought of having been intimate with someone who represents state authority is profoundly violating, said Jen Meunier, who identifies as Algonquin and a womyn of mixed descents. “Sexual consent means being fully aware of the circumstances, being aware of everything that is necessary for your safety.”

Indigenous communities in Canada have understood surveillance and infiltration to be a concrete reality for many decades now, Meunier said.

Rachelle Sauve, a cook and community organizer in Peterborough, Ontario, who knew people who were affected by direct interactions with infiltrators, believes undercover agents strategically take advantage of characteristics that are traditionally stereotyped as being feminine, such as compassion, nurturing and emotional receptivity.

“That, in itself, is gendered violence,” she said. “This is coercion, this is manipulation, and this is rape—the criminalization of dissent is the only reason it is seen as acceptable.”

Like in any war, the women of subordinate groups—such as Muslims, Arabs, activists and Indigenous peoples—find the oppression they already face on the basis of gender exacerbated by their status as targets of state repression.

Sauve views the use of sex in intelligence gathering as part of the broader historical picture of gender violence, often used as a tool of control and domination.

“This contains a certain depth of psychological warfare that is particularly pernicious,” she said. “You can destroy an entire culture by raping its women.”

According to Professor Marx, the role of secrecy is the key structural enabler of sexual misconduct in undercover operations. In addition, cases of infiltration are rarely made public if they do not succeed in gaining grounds for arrests. Most of the people who have had interactions with infiltrators may never find out the individual's true identity.

The best devices for preventing sexual misconduct by police are transparency, pluralism of powers in the state and continual institutional review, Professor Marx said.

Human rights law may be an excellent emerging tool for seeking redress in cases like these, which have no clear precedent. Judiciary law also contains tools for pursuing accountability, such as suing perpetrators for mental harm.

For Meunier and Sauve, the solution for activist communities involves a stronger acknowledgement of the gendered aspects of state repression.

“We need to collectively address gender issues and heal our vulnerabilities all the time—not just when something bad happens."

Kelly Pflug-Back is a poet, writer, student and activist. You can find her newest stuff in upcoming issues of Goblin Fruit, Ideomancer Speculative Fiction and Iconoclast.

Questions? Comments? Drop us a line: info@mediacoop.ca.

Spooks using sex

G20 Fallout Continues

dawn — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:54:08 +0000

Legal battles and jail time continue months after the showdown in Toronto

GUELPH, ON—Though the G20 summit in Toronto is long over, communities organizing against austerity continue to feel the sting of state repression. Of the over 1,100 people arrested in conjunction with protests against the G20 meetings in Toronto, 66 still face legal battles, house arrest and jail time.

On November 22, 11 of the 17 people facing a complex set of conspiracy charges had their charges dropped. As part of a plea bargain, the other six will serve more jail time.

Leah Henderson, Peter Hopperton, Erik Lankin, and Adam Lewis are in the course of serving their sentences of 10 months, five-and-a-half months, three months, and three-and-a-half months, respectively. These sentences are being served in addition to time spent in pre-trial detention—a period of as much as 70 days in the case of Lankin. Henderson is in Vanier prison in Milton, Ontario, while the other three are at Penetanguishene Central North Correctional Centre.

“Let people know that I’m not being wrecked by prison,” Lankin told The Dominion from jail. “It’s something to get through and I’m looking forward to continuing to organize when I get out.”

Also as part of the group plea deal, Mandy Hiscocks—who is being sentenced today—is expecting to serve 16 months and Alex Hundert is expecting to serve an additional 13.5 months.

“To those in jail or still on charges from the anti-G20 protests, to political prisoners and prisoners in struggle, we are still with you,” reads a statement put out by the 17 co-accused in late November.

In addition to this “main conspiracy group,” others are still facing G20-related charges and possible jail time, including George Horton, Ryan Rainville, Kelly Pflug-Back, Greg Rowley, Emomotimi Azorbo, Julian Ichim, Dan Kellar and Byron Sonne, among others.

Horton, from Peterborough, faces “a string of charges including three counts of mischief over [$5,000], assaulting a police officer, disguise with intent, possession of stolen property under [$5,000]” and possession of a dangerous weapon, a support call-out for Horton reads.

“Since the charging of six community organizers and eleven dropped charges, [Horton] and others being charged with ‘on-the-ground’ offenses such as mischief and assault, face an even heavier likelihood of being scapegoated by the court, in an effort to justify the billion dollar G20 budget and the ensuing violence of police,” reads Horton’s support statement. The Dominion was unable to reach Horton or his support team before this article went to print.

Ryan Rainville was charged with “on-the-ground” offences and plead to three counts of mischief over $5,000 in early December.

In his statement to the court, Rainville insisted on his rejection of the colonial, racist court system. “I have plead guilty to the destruction of state property, and while awaiting trial and sentencing I have spent more than three months in jail, nine months on house arrest, and two months living under strict bail conditions,” he told the court. “I have been beaten and condemned for my political beliefs, and I have served enough time in punishment for the damage that I have accepted responsibility for. It is time now for the state to set me free,” he said.

Rainville was sentenced to four months of house arrest at the Sagatay Toronto men’s shelter, on top of the time that he has already served. The Crown is currently appealing his sentence.

“I know at the core of my gut that I didn’t do anything wrong,” Rainville told The Dominion. “This is how the state is going to react,” he added. “We need to band together and stay solid, even in the face of it.”

Still ongoing is the trial of Kelly Pflug-Back, whose original charges included assaulting police with a weapon and conspiracy, though these charges have been dropped.

“There was nothing to suggest that I assaulted a police officer with a weapon,” Pflug-Back told The Dominion. “They just wanted to slap that on to my case as a way to really crack down on me and keep me on house arrest.” She continues to face charges of mischief, which she is still waiting to have resolved.

While serving more than a month in pre-trial detention, Pflug-Back was denied medical treatment for her chronic polyautoimmune disorders, which include thyroid disease and fibromyalgia. “They violated my right to access medical care. They violated my right to freedom of movement,” she told The Dominion.

Following her detention, Pflug-Back was put under stringent house arrest and was forced to be under the direct supervision of her parents while outside of the home. Once again, this made access to medical treatment nearly impossible. “They violated my right to not be subject to arbitrary detention,” said Pflug-Back. “I was basically under the same kind of conditions as someone accused of manslaughter.”

According to Pflug-Back, a plainclothes homicide detective made an appearance at each of her court dates. “The police were really taking [my case] personally. They had bought into this portrayal of me as being this rabid cop hater. It hurt their feelings, you know? You have to have a little compassion.”

Greg Rowley is also charged with “on the ground” offenses, but could not be reached by The Dominion before this article went to print.

Emomotimi Azorbo, who is described as an “apolitical person,” was confronted by police at the G20 as he was crossing the street. Azorbo, who is deaf, did not hear the police were shouting at him. He was then targeted by police for noncompliance. “There was a bit of resistance when police handcuffed him because he didn’t know what was happening,” Azorbo’s lawyer Howard Morton said in an article published in The Lawyers Weekly.

Azorbo was denied an unbiased, non-police sign language translator while in custody. Despite his treatment in detention, the charges of assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest are being pursued against him—charges that Morton resolves will “embarrass” the Ontario government.

On December 13, Sterling Stutz, who had her charges withdrawn as part of the “main conspiracy group”, stood in front of Old City Hall in Toronto at a support rally and media event for defendant Julian Ichim. “The police spent over a billion dollars on policing for the G20, they arrested over a thousand people, and what they got was a handful of charges,” Stutz told the crowd that had gathered for the rally. “These arrests were basically bought with that money.”

Stutz was among those attending court in support of Ichim, who is facing charges on three counts of disobeying a court order for having posted his personal account of interactions with an undercover police officer.

The officer operated under the alias “Khalid Mohammad” (the officer’s real name is Bindo Schowan) as a participant in social justice groups for more than a year in advance of the G20. Ichim posted his account of Schowan’s impacts of the community during the publication ban that forbade the publishing of identifying information relating to undercover officers.

In his blog, Ichim describes his story of befriending the undercover, referring to Schowan only by his pseudonym. Two days after publishing the blog post, Ontario Provincial Police officers arrived at Ichim’s house with an order that he withdraw his post. Ichim refused. “I wasn’t caught at a protest for causing trouble, but was sitting home quietly telling my story on the internet,” he told the crowd at the rally.

Dan Kellar is in a similar situation as Ichim. He faces charges after publishing a blog post on www.peaceculture.org. He is facing two counts of criminal defamation and one count of counsel to assault, also stemming from a blog post about G20-related incidents. The charge of counsel to assault relates to one particular line in the post that reads “spit in [the undercover’s] footsteps and scoff at his existence if you see him.”

Kellar is still awaiting the resolution of his charges.

Byron Sonne faces charges of possessing explosive substances. The security consultant denies having malicious intent. Sonne first appeared on the police radar for photographing the G20 security perimeter. The support team for Sonne declined a interview request with The Dominion, explaining that it's proving risky for them to speak publicly at this juncture in the trial.

According to numbers released by the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General in December, of the over 1,100 people arrested at the G20, 330 people appeared before the court. Of them, 201 had their charges dismissed or withdrawn. In all, 32 people have plead guilty, 39 people have seen resolution through diversion programs, and 34 are still awaiting resolution to their charges.

Shailagh Keaney is a writer and community organizer currently based in occupied Neutral territory in Southern Ontario.

Justice for our Communities March, G-20

Infographic: Threatening Ideologies

Moira Peters — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 05:36:25 +0000

tim-infog.11X17.new_.jpg

Tim Groves is an independent researcher and journalist in Toronto.

The Roads We Travelled

Moira Peters — Wed, 18 May 2011 05:39:02 +0000

Building the Toronto People's Assembly

TORONTO—Copenhagen, December 15, 2010. The day before what CNN referred to as “the most hotly anticipated action of the summit,“ nearly 1,000 activists huddled together in a Danish squat that became the focal point of grassroots mobilization against the United Nations annual Coalition of the Parties (COP) Climate Change Conference.

Lisa, an American activist and veteran of 1999 World Trade Organization protests in Seattle, delivered a final pitch for the plan of action while maps were distributed, blocs were formed and participants felt the growing anticipation of being part of a plan to change the course of history.

“We will use the combined mass of our bodies to push through the police lines and then break through the fence,” she announced. “Once we are inside the UN grounds we will secure a safe space where delegates coming out from the conference can join us and together we will form a People’s Assembly.”

As much as has been said about the day of December 16—the “Reclaim Power” People’s Assembly in Copenhagen—the prior two weeks of frantic meetings, alliance building and constant striving to create an inclusive and horizontal process were critical in creating a new model for organizing that could be exported around the world. This action in Copenhagen was to inspire the Toronto People’s Assembly, a global gathering held in parallel to the 2010 G8/G20 summits.

Cochabamba, April 2010. Bolivia hosted the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. Toronto activists in Cochabamba observed a conference that, while engaging the grassroots participation of 30,000 activists from across the globe, was largely organized from the top down. The Toronto People’s Assembly drew much inspiration from Cochabamba, which also acted as a guide for the Assembly to be critical of its own process.

The main development to come out of Cochabamba was a collective understanding that the best way to answer the international call for justice is to build your struggle locally. One of the lessons drawn from Bolivia was the need to put in place impactful structures to build and maintain a movement that is substantial, consistent and long-term. The call from Cochabamba was to build a worldwide climate justice movement.

Toronto, May/June 2010. The weeks in May immediately following Cochabamba and in June prior to the G20 were a crucial and transformative period for the social and climate justice communities. Ongoing talks and discussions evaluated which elements could be drawn from Cochabamba.

“The People’s Assembly is an extension of the dialogue, organization, and mobilization that took place in Cochabamba. It’s an instrument through which local activists can create new spaces, and generate new possibilities,” said organizer Raul Burbano, who is also active with Toronto’s Latin America Solidarity Network.

As June 2010 and the G20 grew closer, a call was put out through the Toronto Community Mobilization Network for a day of resistance for climate and environmental justice during the G8/G20. Responding to this call, a circle of unaligned climate justice and environmental organizers started meeting weekly in a park on Church Street. Two plans for action emerged. One was a rally that would become known as the Toxic Tour. The other was the People’s Assembly on Climate Justice (PACJ).

The G20 hit Toronto like a storm, and the collective response was quick and widespread, with a resounding call to establish new relationships that was not only heard, but also understood.

In the aftermath of the G20, the organizing community would suddenly find itself in a new, highly charged environment. After the Toronto People’s Assembly on June 23, 2010, and through July and August, the intensity of organizing would remain high, with action camps across the country and groups in Toronto together emphasizing the immediate need for movement building. There would be no doubt that a second PACJ would take place.

Maxim Winther, a participant in the June 2010 Assembly, said, “I don’t really know what the G20’s like because it’s behind two layers of fence and it’s costing billions of dollars and I’m not seeing any of that. All I see is police roaming the streets.“

Police from across the country turned the downtown Toronto hub into what the Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin would later call “a time period where martial law set in the city of Toronto, leading to the most massive compromise of civil liberties in Canadian history.”

Despite this atmosphere, the Toronto PACJ was vibrant and successful, and another People’s Assembly was organized on December 4, 2010—the Worldwide Day of Climate Action. While the first PACJ focused on defining the meaning of climate justice, the second focused on the collective work of building a stronger movement for climate justice in Toronto. For both Assemblies, the starting point for participants to generate ideas was a “framing question”—a direct import from the Reclaim Power Assembly in Copenhagen.

The main innovation introduced in Toronto was a round of break-out groups, allowing more space for the Assembly’s horizontal process both to generate ideas and also to orient itself for action by harnessing the intimacy and energy of small group work. Beginning with the December 2010 Assembly, Toronto activists took the working-group model that emerged from Cochabamba and re-framed it as a series of permanent action-oriented bodies known as People’s Councils. People’s Councils included Movement Building, Outreach & Education, Group Coordination, Building Alternatives Spaces, Mass Action & Political Pressure, and Personal Development.

Both assemblies generated more than 200 participants and more than 40 endorsements from community groups in Toronto.

“It was very participatory and very open,” said Alaynah Smith. The new activist who travelled to Toronto from Michigan said the People’s Assembly was “unlike the G8/G20 where we can’t see stuff...and its really kind of almost a mystery. But this was open to the public; anybody could come and we all had a voice equally.”

The Assembly is an open collective dialogue which organizers have termed “radical horizontality.” Within the Assembly, radical horizontality is a two-pronged process which allows participants, through two rounds of break-outs and intermittent plenaries, to first generate ideas, and then to develop and synthesize them with the goal of establishing mandates for the People’s Councils. Radical horizontality extends to everyday life, seeking to establish shared responsibility and accountability in the entire community, making local resistance and organizing sustainable.

From its beginning, the Assembly focused on being a point of convergence inclusive to a wide range of organizations: women’s groups, anti-poverty, food security and environmental and migrant justice organizations, cyclists, co-operatives, collectives, and so on. To transform communities, the Assembly posited closing the gap between activism and everyday life.

Raul Zibechi, a Uruguayan socio-political theorist, explained how “in the new pattern of action...mobilization starts in the spaces of everyday life and survival, putting in [motion] an increasing number of social networks or, that is to say, societies in movement, self-articulated from within.” The People’s Councils were modeled on the hope of establishing this sort of organizing on a permanent basis, to make the leap from activism to organized communities.

The post-G20 realities of community organizing in Canada presented a challenge, and a new dynamic that calls for activists to develop, out of necessity, new methods of organizing. This requires ingenuity, responsibility, and a long-term willingness to sculpt a new grassroots paradigm.

Small beginnings and creative examples were observed in Canada during the months following the G20.

Action camps took place throughout the country during the summer of 2010, themed around climate justice, Indigenous solidarity, non-violent direct action and tar sands/pipeline resistance. Organizers built links between cities and strengthened regional networks. Simultaneous People’s Assemblies were organized in December 2010 across Canada; organizers in Montreal began to develop a climate justice co-op, and the climate justice community in Toronto established a permanent People’s Assembly. Climate justice organizers have used momentum from the G20 to create their own grassroots infrastructure, without waiting for existing infrastructure to get on board, or being dependent on external funding.

The People’s Assembly in Toronto rose on the tide of a paradigm shift towards popular assemblies as an alternative to the failure of international institutions and nation-states to address the urgent global threat presented by the climate crisis.

At the same time, a global climate justice movement has grown organically, shaped by horizontal structures, and differentiating itself from mainstream environmental voices through a deep anti-capitalist analysis.

The year 2010 presented the organizing community in Canada with two major opportunities to mobilize—one in Vancouver to oppose the Olympics and one in Toronto to resist the G20. Toronto organizers took this confluence of factors as an opportunity, and the People’s Assembly was one outcome.

By eschewing traditional hierarchies, the open and inclusive process of the Assembly is an invitation for communities and organizers to come together and build solidarity, share skills and coordinate efforts.

“The aim of the People’s Assembly in Toronto,” an organizer told The Dominion, “is for the climate justice community and its allies to utilize it as a vehicle or a space through which it can operate as a movement, a self-articulated space that will allow it to remain a movement.”

Kimia Ghomeshi, an organizer of the June Toronto People’s Assembly, told a Toronto Media Co-op reporter that the entire process was “highly participatory which we so rarely see in Canada...What will change things is the solutions being home-grown because then they’re relevant to the local context and people feel more ownership in creating that change rather than it being imposed on them.”

This article was produced by the Toronto Media Co-op for A People's Forecast: The Climate Justice Issue, our 2011 special issue. To read more articles as they are published, click here.For more news driven by readers and not advertisers, check out www.toronto.mediacoop.ca

People's Assembly Image

Questions Persist about Provocateurs at SPP Summit

Moira Peters — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:33:30 +0000

As protester is acquitted of charges from 2007 Montebello protest, questions resurface about police-incited violence

TORONTO—A Quebec court ruling in January 2011 found police acted illegally in trying to shut down a protest in Montebello, Quebec, in 2007, when they arrested two women on a downtown street. This ruling has led to renewed calls for an inquiry into another police action—one now well-known, thanks to Youtube—at that same protest: the alleged use of undercover officers to incite violence.

On August 20, 2007, the heads of state of Canada, Mexico and the US met at a summit in Montebello to discuss the proposed Security Prosperity Partnership (SPP), an agreement that would have harmonized trade and security measures between the three countries. A protest against the meeting took place throughout the day.

Late in the afternoon, when the number of demonstrators had dwindled, a line of riot police attempted to disperse those who remained on the streets. While most of the protesters were pushed backwards by police, activist Leila Martin and another person sat on the ground, clinging to each other, as the police swept over them. They were arrested for obstructing police, who were carrying out orders to shut down the demonstration.

Martin was offered a discharge if she pleaded guilty to the charge, whereby she would not receive any fine, jail time, or a criminal record. She was advised to take the deal by her court-appointed lawyer. She told him, “I don't actually think I am guilty and I think my freedom of assembly was violated.”

Her lawyer told her that if she pleaded not guilty he would refuse to represent her.

“You won't represent me then,” she told him.

Martin then went about the work of learning how to prepare her own defense, reading all the court cases she could find which involved charter challenges. She made sure that her charter challenge emphasized why she was protesting the SPP.

Martin did most of the research around presenting her case, and eventually acquired a lawyer, Denis Barrette, who helped her finish writing her charter challenge and represented her in court.

Martin told The Dominion that with support, it is possible to prepare one’s own charter challenge. (She said she would encourage anyone in a similar position to write to her, "and I would help them do it.")

When the matter eventually went to court, Judge Lapointe ruled the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had indeed been violated.

“The approach [of the] RCMP against the two women arrested, including the accused, is incomprehensible,” said Quebec Court Judge Real Lapointe in his January ruling, acquitting the charge brought against activist Martin.

“Police decided to end the demonstration. We will not know why. In itself it is surprising, in the presence of a largely peaceful and festive crowd who met...to express opinions and positions. This expression of their deepest beliefs is a right guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of this country and gives the rally itself a special character and importance.”

The RCMP and Surete du Quebec (SQ—Quebec police) chose not to comment on the ruling.

Judge Lapointe said another factor that supported the argument of the defense was testimony that during the protest police used agents provocateurs—a term used to describe the use of undercover officers to try and provoke activists into committing illegal acts.

Lapointe was referring to an incident earlier in the protest. Dave Coles, President of the Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP), confronted three undercover police officers dressed in black and wearing masks over their faces. The officers were posing as Black Bloc, and one of them, who would later be identified as Sergent Jean-Francois Boucher, held a large stone in his hand. The event was caught on video.

“These three guys are cops, everybody; put the rock down, cop,” said Coles on the video. As Coles confronted the three undercover officers, Boucher shoved him. The officers also swore at Coles, and continued to push him and others gathered at the scene.

Coles and others activists, including some dressed in Black Bloc, continued to yell at the undercover officers and tried to remove their masks. Eventually the three jumped into the line of riot police, where they were handcuffed and led away.

“They are trying to create a riot so they can suck us all in to get beat up,” said Coles on the video, which went viral on Youtube and has been watched more than a half-million times.

At first the RCMP and SQ denied allegations that the men were in fact police officers. But three days after the incident, on August 23, 2007, the SQ released a statement explaining the men were indeed undercover members of their force, but denying that the officers had committed an illegal act.

The three officers, Sergeants Boucher, Joey Laflamme and Patrick Tremblay were part of an undercover team code-named “flagrant delit,” which roughly translates to “caught red-handed.” The team’s official role, according to a report by the Quebec Police Ethics Committee, was to “melt into the crowd to identify the perpetrators of crime and stop them.”

“It is wrong for a state to use its own security forces, police, provocateurs, undercover agents, to evoke violence. That's not democratic. We have a voice, we had a right to [speak], and we had a right to assemble,” Coles told The Dominion in a telephone interview.

Coles began asking for a public inquiry into the event. He wanted to know who gave the orders to use agents provocateurs. Instead of being granted an inquiry, the channel offered to him was to bring a complaint before the official body for dealing with police wrongdoing in Quebec, the Police Ethics Committee.

On May 19, 2009, the Commissioner of the Committee dismissed six of the eight complaints brought forward by the CEP. Five months later, on October 19, 2009, the Committee overturned the Commissioner’s ruling and started a new investigation, stating, “If the infiltration of police officers to stop the authors of criminal acts is acceptable, not all acts committed by [police] to this end are legitimate just because the original goal is desirable.”

The Committee released its final report on March 14th, 2011, finding that Boucher had breached the police code of conduct by swearing at and pushing Coles, but dismissed charges of inciting violence and abusing his authority. The charges against the other two officers were all dismissed.

Coles does not think the Committee was asking the right questions. He wanted to know who gave orders for undercover police to incite protesters in Montebello in 2007.

“They were able to box us into a corner,” said Coles about the way his complaint was handled by the Committee. “It was all about the conduct of three policemen rather than who gave the political orders for agent provocateurs to go in and disrupt the assembly.”

Coles said he felt encouraged by Judge Lapointe’s ruling, and he has renewed his call for an inquiry into the actions of police at Montebello—especially the use of agents provocateurs.

“What is happening more and more and more in Canada, as witnessed through the G8/G20, is that the state thinks that if they don't like what you have to say, they will go in and mess it up so that the message isn't clear,” said Coles.

No clear evidence has emerged that agent provocateurs were used at the G20 protests. However, some activists like Coles still have their suspicions.

A week after the G20 protests, on July 2, 2010, Le Devoir, a Quebec daily newspaper, ran a story entitled, “G20: la police aurait utilise des agents provocateurs”—“G20: The police reportedly used agents provocateurs.”

The article refers to a video in which “plainclothes police, disguised as protesters, some armed with batons and sticks, took cover behind a cordon of police. One of them dressed all in black with a hood over his head, as [in the style of] Black Bloc.”

However there is no indication in this video that the alleged plainclothed officers were provoking or inciting activists.

"As far as [using] officers dressed as Black Bloc, I will not say we didn't. I will not speak to our techniques," said Sergeant Michele Paradis, an RCMP spokesperson, when asked about police tactics during the G20. "I won't speak to the manners we will use to keep the community and the [G20] delegates safe."

Meaghan Gray, spokesperson for the Toronto Police Service, had a less ambiguous answer, saying in an email that undercover officers did not dress as Black Bloc.

In response to an access-to-information request on the "use of so-called agent provocateurs or undercover Black Bloc infiltration policies" at the G20, nine pages were released by the RCMP and made available to The Dominion. These documents mostly deal with the structure of undercover operations. In addition to these nine pages, another four pages were redacted in their entirety.

Only one page—a set of media talking points—speaks about agents provocateurs. It reads, “None of the Integrated Security Unit partners use so-called agents provocateurs,” and, “In fact, the role of police is to de-escalate tension and preserve the peace.”

“I don’t believe that. In fact, there is just no evidence that the police were trying to diffuse anything,” said Coles.

Coles said many wrongdoings at the G20 have already been exposed, but he expects many more will be revealed.

“A lot of this stuff is going to be uncovered a lot more [easily] than it was for us at Montebello,” he said. He believes the number of photos and videos taken in Toronto is what will make a difference. “I think social media is going to help us to uncover the facts and force an inquiry.”

His union, the CEP, is one of many groups, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE), the federal New Democratic Party and Amnesty International, calling for a public inquiry into police actions at the G20.

"The suggestion that police informants may have endorsed or supported the commission of acts of vandalism is particularly concerning," said NUPGE and the CCLA in a recent report on police actions during the G20. They "believe an independent inquiry into this aspect of G20 policing is necessary to investigate the extent of undercover operations and address the limits on what police infiltrators can and cannot do while on assignment."

Tim Groves is an investigative researcher and journalist based in Toronto. He twitters @timymit.

molatov provocateur

You've Got Bail! (But No Freedom)

Moira Peters — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:11:46 +0000

Ryan Rainville, and the letter of G20 law

TORONTO—The men’s shelter doesn’t look like a prison. There are no bars on the windows, no sign announcing the building’s institutional status. The walls are decorated with posters about Indigenous pride and occasionally the air is tinged with the sweet smell of burning sage.

For Ryan Rainville however, it is a prison. He is not allowed to leave the shelter except to see his lawyer and for occasional group activities. There is a long list of people—some of whom he has never met—whom the courts have ordered him not to contact. Because of these conditions he can’t work or go to school.

"I went from being able to actually work and come up with my own money to not being able to work...It's driving me nuts that I can't go out there and look for work because I want to help my mom, and her partner," said Rainville, whose mother was recently diagnosed with cancer. "That poor guy is working double shifts so that he can keep up with the [medical] bills."

Rainville is charged with crimes related to alleged participation in the Black Bloc during the G20 protests. He was arrested August 5, 2010. His original bail was denied and he spent three months in pre-trial detention in prisons in the Toronto area before finally being granted bail on November 9, 2010.

During the G20 protests in Toronto in June 2010, more than 1,100 people were arrested in the largest mass arrest in Canadian history. Many more were detained or trapped in the rainy streets for hours between lines of riot police using a tactic called "kettling."

The now-infamous Public Works Protection Act, a Second World War-era law that was secretly re-enacted by the province—and which the Ontario Ombudsman called "illegal" and "likely unconstitutional" in a report released in December 2010—was used for arrests across a broad swath of downtown Toronto, even though the act was supposed to apply to the area inside the G20 security fence. In a video posted on YouTube, police officers were quoted as saying, "This ain't Canada right now; you're in G20 land." Only one man—environmental justice activist Dave Vasey—was formally charged under the Public Works Protection Act, but when he arrived at his court date, he found the charges had been "lost."

Many who were released from the temporary detention centre on Eastern Avenue allege beatings by police, threats of rape, strip searches of young women by male officers and widespread denial of the right to call a lawyer after arrest. Due cause was thin on the ground, and in many cases, passers-by were arrested. A Toronto Transit Commission worker in full uniform was arrested while walking between job sites. By the time of the first mass court date for G20 defendants in August 2010, only 300 people faced charges, 100 of which were dropped that day at the courthouse for lack of evidence, and 100 more which were dropped October 14, 2010.

Since the G20, police have engaged in what critics are calling a witchhunt against activists, arresting 11 from Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) during a small demonstration outside Liberal Party headquarters in downtown Toronto. Authorities appear to be targeting particular kinds of activists on thin pretenses. Indigenous activist Jaroslava Avila was arrested after speaking at a health-related event on September 29, 2010, at the University of Toronto, only to have charges dropped for lack of evidence on December 20, 2010, after her name was released to the press and she had spent months living with restrictive bail conditions.

Rainville, 23, is active in Indigenous and working-class organizing. Friends describe him as a tireless activist, always ready with a joke or an insightful observation. He is of Cree background, but notes that he appears White, and therefore escapes the worst racial prejudice.

He is fluent in Spanish—his stepfather is from El Salvador and he taught himself the language while spending time in the country. Self-educated, Rainville is reading through a huge stack of books—political literature, texts on Indigenous land claims and Foucault’s Discipline and Punish. He was working on his high school diploma through an academic upgrading course at George Brown before he was forced to drop out due to post-G20 legal harassment. Prior to his current bail conditions, he supported himself through work as a factory laborer and as a baker.

Despite having no criminal record, Rainville was initially denied bail, and had to wait in jail for three months until his appeal was heard. Most other G20 defendants in this situation were released within days or weeks. Rainville attributes this disparity in treatment to poverty.

“My father is dirt-poor and works for just above minimum wage as a truck driver, and my mother lives in the US right now, and is also dirt-poor,” he said. “She was working in a factory for $7.25 per hour until she contracted breast cancer, for which she just had surgery today.”

Because of economic insecurity, he explained, his family has been forced to disperse from Toronto. This makes it difficult to get bail, as he would be unable to live with family if released. Neither can his family post up large amounts of money, nor purchase a plane ticket to Toronto to testify in court on his behalf. Each of these elements of a disadvantaged economic situation work against someone going through the court system.

“If you have a lot of money you are going to get more justice in this system,“ said lawyer Davin Charney, who is familiar with Rainville's case and is defending other G20 arrestees. “This doesn’t apply just to Ryan; this applies to people of the working class and impoverished people.” Charney said many people in economic difficulty find it hard to access bail, not only because they have trouble raising the large sums of money required, but also because they have trouble finding someone who will be respected by the court, and who has space to put them up if the court requires a residential surety—someone who can vouch for them. Homeless people, for example, do not have an address—a requirement to be granted bail.

Gary McCullough, who was arrested for driving near the G20 zone with most of his possessions in his car, experienced the judicial disadvantage of poverty that Charney cited. According to the Toronto Star, McCullogh was kept in prison with minimal health care and suffered a jailhouse beating, exacerbating his mental illness. He was initially denied bail because his elderly parents are unable to supervise him. He was only released December 6, 2010.

“People charged with what would be essentially the same crime are being treated very differently [than non-G20 related offenders],” said Charney. “For example, in my practice when people are charged with mischief it’s seen as a less serious offence, but for some reason because of the context of the G20 there is all this hysteria…They are pulling officers who would normally be on the homicide squad, or the sexual assault squad, and putting them to investigate these ‘mischief makers,’ which I find really upsetting. It’s a political decision on the part of the police.”

Byron Sonne, charged with computer crimes, has been incarcerated without bail since his arrest on June 22, 2010, before the G20 even started.

Activist Alex Hundert was preemptively arrested in the early morning on June 26, 2010, released on bail, then re-arrested. Police interpreted his speaking with several professors at an indoor panel at Ryerson University on September 17, 2010, as violating a bail condition about speaking at public demonstrations. He was released after the legality of this was challenged and after being forced under duress on October 13 to sign what he called “draconian” conditions. Ten days later, Hundert was re-arrested under the pretense of another alleged bail violation; he was recently released after taking a plea bargain with the crown.

Rainville was eventually released to a Native bail program at his hearing on November 10, 2010, with his father and two professors as sureties. But, contrary to normal procedure, Ryan’s bail conditions prevent him from leaving the shelter at all, even accompanied by his sureties. He also has a no-alcohol condition which he attributes to anti-Indigenous targeting. “Despite the fact that I’ve grown up with white-skinned privilege—and I do look like a settler—they are targeting me based on my Cree background with this whole alcohol issue.”

“Out” on bail, Rainville is technically free, but his is a pitiful freedom. Time spent confined at the shelter will not count toward Rainville’s time served if he is convicted at his trial, scheduled to take place in April. This situation was made worse by the fact that his mother was diagnosed with cancer, and he could only communicate with her by phone. The day he was interviewed at the shelter, she was having surgery. “They’re telling me that I’m free. But if I were free I’d be holding my mom’s hand next to her hospital bed right now in Louisiana.”

More recent tests found his mother to now be free of cancer.

Rainville can leave the shelter for medical and legal appointments and on group field trips with the shelter staff.

“Aside from that I’m forcibly confined...I basically feel like I’m in jail still, minus the fact my mail is not being torn through and I can read whatever literature I want, and I can have visitors not through a glass window. But aside from that I’m forcibly confined.” The front door of the shelter visibly bothers Ryan; he says he effectively acts as his own jailer.

“I’m doing it to myself, it’s basically out of this want to not end up in jail again,” he said. “I go crazy in this place sometimes. I have to stick to doing jumping jacks and push-ups in my room because I feel like a trapped animal.”

In spite of blatant denial of individuals’ civil rights by the Canadian state, G20 arrestees have been first to encourage Canadians to keep their arrests and detentions in perspective.

“It’s a hugely intrusive imposition,” said Hundert of bail conditions before he was placed on conditions which restricted his ability to talk to media, ”I think it’s supposed to disrupt the communities in which we organize and to be punitive despite the fact that we haven’t been convicted of anything.”

Rainville agrees. “Forget about this,” he said. “Forget about me having a little bit of privilege stripped away from me...This whole thing is a walk in the park compared to what they are doing to people like Omar Khadr.“

Megan Kinch is an activist and journalist in Toronto.

Ryan Rainville

G20 Over, but Legal Woes Drag On

Tim McSorley — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:14:16 +0000

Three hundred to appear in court, G20 organizers face police threats as arrests continue

TORONTO and MONTREAL—Nearly two months after the G20 protests in the streets of Toronto, hundreds of people are slowly moving through the legal system. They face a wide range of charges, from obstruction to conspiracy, and a variety of possible punishments, from fines to serious jail time.

The complexities of the justice system can be difficult at the best of times, but with mass arrests and what many see as politically motivated charges, things have become more daunting.

“The court system is incredibly alienating,” says Ryan White, a lawyer working with the Movement Defense Committee (MDC). “That's why [the courts] are used, to use up time and energy to destroy social movements.”

While it’s difficult to predict the outcome for people facing charges, an estimated 300 people – mainly those who were arrested and held at the detention centre set up in a former film studio in Toronto’s east end – are slated for “set date” court appearances on August 23.

A set date is the first step in the trial, where the accused will be able to clarify their exact charges, will be given their next court dates, and will possibly receive disclosure – meaning they will be permitted to see the evidence being held against them.

Since the set date hearings are not arraignments, defendants will not plead innocent or guilty, but resolution discussions – otherwise known as plea deals – may take place. A spokesperson for the Crown's office refused to comment on the possibility of such negotiations, though Riali Johannesson, another lawyer who volunteers with the MDC, says such discussions are common-place.

Those who remember the temporary bail court hearings immediately after the G20 summits may doubt the wisdom of processing 300 defendants in one day, but both Crown prosecutors and MDC volunteers believe there should be enough resources and staffing for the process to move smoothly. According to Johannesson, legal defence volunteers are in contact with the Crown to find ways to ease the process and ensure hearings do not drag on.

That is reassuring for the dozens of people who will come in from out of town for the hearings, including 110 people from Quebec alone. Montreal’s Anti-capitalist Convergence (CLAC), which organised buses to Toronto for the G20 summit, is organising transport and lodging for those who need to travel to Ontario for their hearings. Other out-of-town defendants, including most from BC, have secured legal counsel to represent them so they do not need to make the 4,000km trek.

There is a possibility that some charges will be dropped on August 23, and that others may be downgraded following resolution discussions. No one will be obliged to take plea deals and groups like CLAC have expressed hope that enough funds will be raised to enable individuals who wish to challenge their charges to do so.

Fundraising takes time though, and in both Montreal and Toronto, where the two main pushes for fundraising are taking place, it is estimated that at least $250,000 needs to be raised in each city in order to cover the legal fees associated with those facing the most serious charges. Farrah Miranda, a spokesperson with the Toronto Community Mobilisation Network (TCMN) was unable to confirm how much money has been raised so far. The TCMN and CLAC are both planning a series of large events over the coming weeks, though, including a performance by trip-hop band LAL in Toronto, and a fundraising dinner and art auction in Montreal as part of what will be year-long funding drives.

Some of the seventeen people co-accused on charges of conspiracy will be among those appearing August 23. All but one of them have been released on bail and face severe restrictions, including house arrests and limits on who they can associate with, on public statements, organizing or participating in protests, using laptops, cell phones and other wireless devices. Kitchener-based community organizer Eric Lankin however, has been in custody for over six weeks.

The courts have issued a publication ban against reports on the proceedings, and some have been warned that speaking to the media may constitute a violation of the bail conditions, which would leave the sureties financially liable. The sureties for Leah Henderson and Alex Hundert were contacted recently by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), who told them comments to the media made by Henderson and Hundert could be interpreted as a breach of their 'no advising or planning political protest' condition, according to Hundert’s brother Jonah. Such a breach would allow the police to put them back in jail.

“It's absolutely absurd and the principle behind it is disgusting,” he says, adding that if there are concerns about breach of bail conditions the proper route is to contact legal representation. “[The OPP] are basically
harassing my family, just as they try to intimidate all people who speak and stand for social justice.”

Many have been critical of the bail conditions, seeing them as particularly repressive. “The coercive bail conditions force those released into a false choice: to stop organising or to face further repression,” says SK Hussan, who, like Henderson and Hundert, has been accused of conspiracy, among other charges. “We are not simply choosing to fight for a better world; it is our responsibility to do so,” he added.

Ongoing arrests continue to evoke the spectre of the G20 mass detentions. No one knows when they will end, and Toronto police have not said they are through with arrests. In mid-July the Toronto Police Service (TPS) released a “most wanted” list of G20 protesters. Since then, the TPS have arrested several of those listed, most recently Ryan Rainville, an Indigenous solidarity activist, who was arrested in Waterloo, Ontario.

“It's clear that the police will extend [the wave of arrests] as long as they can,” says White. But he is optimistic that fighting in the courts could lead to a kind of victory for the defendants. “There are so many stories out there of people who had their rights trampled by the state who have had success in the courts. It's exciting to think about it proactively. It's one way of holding the state accountable.”

Hussan, for his part, is insistent that the focus not be on the ongoing legal battle he and others face, but on building towards a just world: “What’s become increasingly important is not just how are we going to deal with state violence, but how are we going to create the autonomous, just, free communities we all want to live in?”

For more information about what defendants can expect on August 23 and information on legal defense, visit http://movementdefence.org. For more information on legal defense fundraising efforts and news, visit http://g20.torontomobilize.org/ and http://www.clac2010.net/.

Tim McSorley is an editor with The Dominion. Megan Kinch is an activist and journalist in Toronto.

G20 police line

Strengthening Our Resolve

Moira Peters — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 05:36:24 +0000

An interview with Alex Hundert

Since this article was first posted on the website of the Vancouver Media Co-op, Alex Hundert and others have been warned not to speak to the media. We are reposting the article to share Hundert's words with a larger audience.

VANCOUVER—In the wee hours of June 26, Alex Hundert awoke to the sound of police breaking down his door with a battering ram. Members of the gang unit entered his home in Toronto with guns drawn, arrested him and his partner, and took them to the now infamous temporary jail set up in an old film studio in Toronto.

By the time the mass arrests began Saturday evening (June 26), Hundert had been transferred to the Maplehurst jail in Milton, Ontario. Over the next days, more than 1,000 G20 arrestees were put behind bars, including 16 more organizers and activists from southern Ontario and Quebec who face serious, trumped-up charges.

This might seem a far cry from the life of a self-described former "ski bum" who grew up the older of two boys in a middle class Toronto home. But Hundert, who was released on bail July 19 and faces charges of conspiracy related to G20 organizing, can trace a line from his early activism right through to today.

While studying at Wilfred Laurier University, Hundert's early forays into organizing were typical of many university students. "I was thrust into situations where these big, very effective organizing efforts—like doing campus fundraisers for popular causes such as AIDS—were happening and we'd get hundreds of people involved. But then everyone one would go home and feel that they'd done their part and everything was okay," he said. "I felt that no matter how much money we raised on a university campus, we were not really contributing anything to the solution."

Providing support at the blockade in Grassy Narrows opened Hundert's eyes to a far more holistic form of activism, and deepened his analysis of capitalism and colonialism. "In Grassy Narrows, I got to see first-hand the extent to which many of the things we're told about this country are flagrant lies, and the extent to which the exploitation of resources and labour is synonymous with the destruction of communities," he said.

Judy Da Silva, Asubpeeschoseewagong Anishinabe (Grassy Narrows First Nations), who has worked closely with Alex since 2006, attributes the growing movement of non-Natives in support of Indigenous land rights to the work of Alex and others in southern Ontario.

“Alex Hundert is a patient, generous person who works tirelessly on environmental and social issues on behalf of Mother Earth and her inhabitants,” said Da Silva in a statement of support for Hundert. “He has continued to support us in our struggle to protect our boreal forest from logging and pollution and to raise awareness about our issues [among] non-Natives.”

But instead of being in Grassy Narrows, Hundert remains under house arrest at his father's home in Toronto. He jokes that he's been reading too much Chomsky, but says being jailed confirmed events he'd witnessed as an activist in support of Indigenous struggles.

On the inside, other prisoners helped him fill out forms and navigate the prison system, which Hundert says is designed to dehumanize prisoners and their communities. But he thinks the attempt of the state to quash dissent through repression will have the opposite effect.

"I think in the long run it's going to have the same effect that cracking down on legitimate dissent and the public voices of communities always has," said Hundert. "The effect is strengthening the resolve of that very voice."

Already, people with no interest in political radicalism have been radicalized, said Hundert. "For every person that they are pulling out of the movement—to the extent that they're able to do that through criminalizing and incarcerating us—there are several people to take our place," he said.

Hundert doesn't want a focus on the criminalization of activism to obscure the reasons people are in the streets.

"Whether it's remote-controlled airplanes dropping bombs in Pakistan, or whether it's the OPP [Ontario Provincial Police] attacking Six Nations land defenders, or whether it's the Integrated Security Unit criminalizing so-called anarchists, it's all about the attempt to break people's resistance to an imposed order," he said. "It is important to question just how democratic or legitimate that order is, and lots of people know that, and hanging on to that conviction is just as important as being honest about the experience of criminalization."

Though this has been a difficult time for Alex’s friends and allies, they remain firm supporters of his work. "Alex’s family and friends are proud that he is putting his future on the line in the service of social justice," said Amy Rossiter, a Professor at York University, in a letter of support for Hundert.

"I think the most important thing we can do is to make space for those communities that have been most silenced in shaping the current system to facilitate a process of transformation with their voices, visions and practices," he said.

The Kitchener-Waterloo Community Center for Social Justice, which Hundert helped found, is one example of creating that space. "Once we make space it is a lot harder for them to take it away, and no matter what they do to us, other people can join that community and culture of resistance and fill it with what they want."

To support those still in jail and facing charges, donate to the legal defense fund.

Dawn Paley is an organizer with the Vancouver Media Co-op.

Alex Hundert

G20 police officer

Preemptive Lockdown

Moira Peters — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 05:44:25 +0000

Briefly, the G8 summit in St. Petersburg, 2006

Large summits are nothing new. The 36th G8 summit will set up shop in Huntsville June 25-26. Toronto, a past host, will this time welcome the 4th G20 summit June 26-27. The following is the last in a six-part series of briefs looking back on past G7/G8 summits and protest. Check back each Sunday for a blast from the past when we recap a different summit's official agenda and civilian and activist responses.

****

St. Petersburg marked the first Russian G8 summit following the country's inclusion in the group in 1997. Its focus was to be on energy security. Wanting to impress its new G8 partners, the Kremlin hired US-based PR firm Ketchum to improve its image. Ketchum has worked extensively for the US Military and Department of Education, where the company was caught up in controversy for allegedly paying commentators to promote then-President George W. Bush's policies. Ketchum was also in hot water over its use of fabricated news segments promoting the benefits of drugs produced by one one of its pharmaceutical clients.

The actual summit took place in Strela, a suburb outside the city. Heavy police presence made it nearly impossible to access, so most protests took place in the city center. As a result, the summit itself was only slightly disrupted by protests, but heavy media attention aided in the dissemination of protesters' messages.

Ella Pamfilova, Coordinator for the National Working Group of Civil G8 2006 said NGOs and civil society were successful in interacting with and influencing the G8. “A number of our recommendations were taken into account by the G8 but we would like to get better results in future.”

The Network Against G8 (SPB8) organized a series of counter-G8 events, protests and publications. A Libertarian Forum was organized in Moscow, as well as the Russian Social Forum and the Other Russia Conference.

Russia was well-equipped to handle protesters. St. Petersburg Special Forces (OMON) made use of Israeli armored vehicles for crowd dispersal, firing water, tear gas and paint. Numerous ports were closed and the St. Petersburg airport was closed, except to airplanes carrying official delegations.

Prior to the meetings in St. Petersburg, over 200 people were reported to have been arrested, some accused of terrorism, to prevent their participation in anti-G8 protests. Representatives from 40 foreign NGOs were refused entry to Russia, apparently for “mistakes in connection with the negligent filling in of forms,” and countless Russians were denied entry into conferences and prevented from traveling.

According to eye-witness reports, people were removed from trains and buses throughout Russia moments before departure for Moscow. Others were summoned to their local police station, threatened with detention on administrative or trumped-up drug charges, reminiscent of the Genoa summit. Protesters were reportedly beaten and attacked in the days before the summit. The Legal Team from the Network Against G8 registered approximately 600 cases of human rights violations during the St. Petersburg summit.

“It seems that since 2006 the authorities started collecting lists of all possible troublemakers, and many preemptive measures were taken,” said Zhelya, an organizer with the anti-G8 protesters. “These lists are still being used by them when protests take place in this or that part of the country.”

Amanda Wilson is a researcher and writer based in Ottawa.

This story was published in The Dominion's special issue on the G8 and G20 summits in Ontario. We will continue to publish independent, investigative news about the G8 and G20 throughout the month of June.

For up-to-the-minute G8/G20 news from the streets of Toronto, visit the Toronto Media Co-op.

Briefly, the G7 summit in Toronto, 1988

Briefly, the G7 summit in Halifax, 1995

Briefly, the G8 summit in Genoa, 2001

Briefly, the G8 summit in Kananaskis, 2002

Briefly, the G8 summit in Gleneagles, 2005

Civil G8 2006

A G8 Facelift and the War on Error

Moira Peters — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 05:30:55 +0000

Briefly, the G8 summit in Gleneagles, 2005

Large summits are nothing new. The 36th G8 summit will set up shop in Huntsville June 25-26. Toronto, a past host, will this time welcome the 4th G20 summit June 26-27. The following is the fifth in a six-part series of briefs looking back on past G7/G8 summits and protest. Check back each Sunday for a blast from the past when we recap a different summit's official agenda and civilian and activist responses.

****

In the words of Waldo Bello, Senior Analyst with Focus on the Global South, the Gleneagles summit was British Prime Minister Tony Blair's attempt to give the G8 a “facelift” in a battle for the “souls of global society.” Dubbed the "Year for Africa,” the 2005 Summit's focus was aid for Africa and achieving the Millenium Development Goals.

Some progress was made: G8 leaders established the “Commission for Africa” and addressed issues of corruption, HIV/AIDS, improved aid provision, education, trade justice, debt cancellation and security.

“Though the G8 has made substantial progress in debt cancellation," wrote Saran Yun of the G8 Research Group at the University of Toronto, "its contributions to effective aid, education, anti-corruption measures, and the fight against infectious diseases have been minimal. In terms of trade reform, the G8’s performance has been dismal at best.” Despite the emphasis on developing countries at Gleneagles, at the following G8 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, African development had all but disappeared from the G8 agenda.

A report by watchdog NGO CorpWatch highlights the strong presence of corporations at the Glengeagles summit. “Blair, [Gordon] Brown and Bono say they want to use the Gleneagles summit to tackle the issues of climate change and poverty in Africa. We argue in this report that the corporate agenda advanced by the G8 ultimately contradicts the achievement of any genuine and lasting ecological and social justice. Precisely because of the corporate agenda, any pronouncements from the G8 are likely to be nothing but ‘greenwash,’” states the report.

The "7/7" London bombings occurred during this summit, not believed to be a coincidence.

Thousands converged on Gleneagles to protest the summit. Security forces attempted to create a “sterile zone” free of protests: high metal fencing and concrete blast barriers were erected around the town and an “air exclusion zone” was imposed. ID “access passes” were distributed to residents to easily identify outside protesters at roadblocks and checkpoints.

The Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army (CIRCA), a network of clown affinity groups, attended the Gleneagles protests. According to CIRCA member General Unrest, CIRCA uses a combination of street theatre and play-tactics to “undermine and ridicule the intimidation and provocation of security forces at demonstrations.” By blowing kisses at police officers, or encircling a group of police who had cornered Black Bloc protesters, CIRCA helped diffuse tense situations and expose the ridiculous security measures at the summit.

CIRCA’s goals were “to wage a War on Error, since we believe that our laughter, our freedom, and our love of life is confronted by fundamentalists who preach the gospel of Error," said General Unrest in an interview. "From July 6-8, 2005, the most dangerous Errorists of the world’s eight richest countries (G8) were meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland, to plan further Errorism on a global scale.”

Amanda Wilson is a researcher and writer based in Ottawa.

For up-to-the-minute G8/G20 news from the streets of Toronto, visit the Toronto Media Co-op.

Briefly, the G7 summit in Toronto, 1988

Briefly, the G7 summit in Halifax, 1995

Briefly, the G8 summit in Genoa, 2001

Briefly, the G8 summit in Kananaskis, 2002

CIRCA

Canada Confronts Europe on Bank Levies

Martin Lukacs — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 05:45:42 +0000

Flaherty leads the charge against Robin Hood Tax

TORONTO—A confrontation is brewing at the upcoming G20 summit in Toronto, pitting Canada against European countries who are promoting a global “Robin Hood” bank tax that could raise hundreds of billions of dollars for social programs, food security or debt-payment.

A number of European nations, led by Britain, are calling for the adoption of taxes that would discourage speculative trading. Canada, however, is opposed to the taxes, and the US, while still uncommitted, is leaning towards Canada’s position. Opposition from one country would undermine the consensus required for the adoption of the multinational bank tax.

In early February, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested that a deal on a potential tax levy could be reached at the Toronto G20 Summit. A few days later the Canadian government publicly opposed any such agreement.

“We’re not going to impose capital taxes on our financial institutions,” Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told journalists. “We’re against raising taxes and I hope to be able to convince my colleagues that these are unwise moves.” The Conservative government has also argued that as the only G8 country whose banks did not require bailouts it should not have to enter into a bank taxation plan.

The Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions for the Aid of Citizens (ATTAC) has criticized the Conservative government for rejecting financial regulation, accusing it of being beholden to financial interests.

“The Conservative government is opposed in principle to any new form of tax,” said Claude Vaillancourt, co-president of ATTAC-Quebec. “The Conservatives are blinded by the non-interventionist principles of neo-liberal economics, to which they adhere with ideological fervency.”

Britain has been at the forefront of the push for various tax and levy schemes to curtail bank risk. Prior to the economic crisis, London was a preeminent banking centre and over the past 20 years has been steadfastly opposed to most regulation of financial services.

The crisis changed all that. After the insolvency of several British banks and a $1.38 trillion bank bailout, and with an election looming, Prime Minister Brown is suddenly talking tough about banks “giving back to society,” telling the media he is “interested in how support is building up for international action.”

Britain’s proposals include a tax on bank transactions and a levy-style tax on assets. The transaction tax, often called the "Robin Hood tax" or the "Tobin tax" (after the US economist James Tobin, who first proposed it in 1972), is the more ambitious. It would focus on the trillions of transactions that take place in financial markets every day, including speculative ones such such as derivatives, which were a key part of the financial crash.

Precipitating the crash, these assets, including bundles of sub-prime mortgages, became overvalued due to speculation. When their values fell rapidly in 2008 the collapse began.

The transaction tax would put a very small tax (from 0.05 per cent to one per cent) on each of these transactions. Critics of unregulated banking argue that had such a tax been in place a few years ago investment banks would have thought twice about performing these transactions, thus lessening the likelihood of the crash.

“A low transactions tax...has little or no impact upon useful, longer term transactions, but limits ‘noise trading’ and very short-term ‘in and out’ speculation,” said Canadian Labour Congress economist Andrew Jackson. “Progressive economists who have advocated a financial transaction tax...believe that it would reduce speculation and volatility, without interfering with normal and useful activities including stock and currency trading and even hedging for legitimate purposes.”

A 2009 study by the Austrian government showed that a 0.05 per cent tax on UK financial trades could raise about £100 billion per year, paying for the expansion of social programs, paying down debt and providing insurance funds against future bailouts.

Grassroots organizations like ATTAC-Quebec take a stronger position, suggesting that any new funds from a tax should not go to banks, which might only encourage them to take more risks, potentially leading to new crises.

“The tax should simply be a fee for assisting citizens across the world,” said Vaillancourt. “This tax could, for example, give all citizens basic services—quality health care or free education.”

Despite its current opposition Canada was one of the first G20 countries to consider adopting the Tobin tax. In 1999 the Liberal government passed a resolution to “enact a Tobin tax in concert with the international community.” However, the Reform Party (later the Conservative Party) opposed the resolution and it did not gain enough international support to be enacted.

The other proposal promoted by European countries is a tax or levy on the assets of banks. It would not bring in sums on the scale of a Tobin tax, though some financial analysts believe it would restrain banks and raise some bailout money. As it stands now the levy has gained support from Britain’s key European counterparts, France and Germany, both of whom are strongly promoting it. From the perspective of the banks this is a more acceptable proposal than the Tobin tax as it would be either a one-off or infrequent fee based on a bank’s worth rather than a tax on its every transaction.

A great deal of Canada’s authority on these bank tax issues within the G20 is based on the perception that the country’s traditional banking sector was able to withstand the financial crisis. The historical record is murkier. While it is true that Canada did not have to bail out its banks there is much more to the story than mainstream media accolades of bank prudence and wise Conservative government policy.

In the late 1990s, and again in the early part of the new millennium, the five Canadian banks aimed to merge into three institutions to obtain the capital base to compete internationally with banks such as Citigroup, UBS and Royal Bank of Scotland. They hoped to enter the “major leagues” of investment banking and non-traditional speculative banking: the very markets that were at the heart of the crash.

Critics argue these merger attempts were not prevented because of a prudent fear of systemic risk, or the Liberal government’s foresight. News of the banks’ ambitions and public outcry about layoffs, branch closures and increased service charges forced the Canadian government to block the mergers. Canadian financial elites and the business class harshly criticized the government. Yet it may have been fortunate for them, and the current government, that the Canadian public was not swayed. Otherwise, Canadian banks might have been bailed out as well in 2008.

The International Monetary Fund has also weighed in, with Managing Director Dominic Strauss-Kahn saying countries opposing bank levies only because they escaped the current crisis unscathed are being “shortsighted.”

The US position leading up to the June G20 meetings is likely to be a major determinant of the success or failure of the G20 bank tax talks. The US bank bailouts have made it difficult for the US government, unlike Canada, to point to their strong financial sector as a reason to oppose bank taxes. Nevertheless, the US has also come out strongly against the Tobin tax and has reacted ambiguously to the idea of an international bank levy.

On the other hand, the Obama administration has made public statements over the last few months about an internal bank levy proposal. This may lead the US to be more open to an international levy given that it would shield them from capital flight if all nations bought in.

Because consensus is required for G20 policy decisions the growing Atlantic divide leaves any tax or levy plans up in the air. Meanwhile, the positions of the other 15 G20 countries are still being developed and do not seem to be getting much attention from the major players.

Though tax-watching might seem like a dull sport it is worth observing the developments this month. The European powers backing these taxes have been shaken by the crisis and pressured by their electorate. Regardless of motivations the taxes could have real-world effects that should not be minimized. The taxes are not radical but at least they point in the right direction: towards the banks.

Darren Puscas is a researcher on a project on women and unionization at McMaster University, and is the editor of the blog www.g20breakdown.com.

For up-to-the-minute G8/G20 news from the streets of Toronto, visit the Toronto Media Co-op.

Dollar bills stick together

Free Trade Goes Local

Cameron Fenton — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:54:22 +0000

Provincial “barriers to trade” broken under new regional agreements

WATERLOO—While the Canadian government was prorogued and the Canadian public was watching the Olympics, Prime Minister Stephen Harper quietly signed the Canada-USA Procurement Agreement (CUPA).

The agreement navigates around a recently enacted United States “Buy-American” policy. Critics of the CUPA argue that the agreement further locks neoliberal ideologies into Canadian-American trade policy. This free-market expansion challenges or removes much of the capacity for provincial and local governments to control local economic development decisions.

The implementation of the CUPA foreshadows Canada’s agenda at the June 2010 G8/20 meetings where, as Harper stated during a planning meeting in Ottawa in March, he will be urging the G20 to “open global markets” and “resist protectionism.” Miranda Goeltom, Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Indonesia, noted at the G20 Workshop on the Global Economy in May 2009 that the G20 agreed upon commitments to “reinvigorate world trade and investment,” primarily through “reducing trade and investment barriers and financial protectionism.”

The CUPA overcomes what a March 2010 edition of the Global Trade Alert report calls a “worrying measure” of protectionism. Under the CUPA, resisting protectionism means decision-makers will have to consider bids from American contractors for procurement contracts, giving no favour to local companies. In an appendix in the CUPA titled “Market Access,” procurement associated with publicly funded schools and local economic development programs in Ontario and Quebec are not protected from the CUPA’s reach. For other provinces and territories, specific exclusions were created for education and local economic development programs.

While there are no tariff barriers between provinces in Canada, differences in regulation and approaches to management in environmental protection, labour rights, health care delivery, and public education are equated to barriers by trade economists. These views are shared by a group which holds considerable influence at the G20 summits—the World Trade Organization. Agreements such as the 2007 Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) between Alberta and BC aim to eliminate these barriers.

In 2009 the Council of Canadians (CoC) released “State of Play: Canada’s Internal Free Trade Agenda,” a report giving updates on TILMA and other interprovincial Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). The report critiques these agreements for allowing “corporations and individuals to challenge any provincial or municipal government measure they feel ‘restricts or impairs’ their investment. Even measures designed to protect the environment and public health can be brought to an unelected TILMA dispute panel with the authority to impose penalties as high as $5 million [against the challenged government].”

This allowance is akin to the CUPA provisions in Notes to Appendix A, which challenge strengthening environmental protections as “disguised barrier[s] to trade,” or the Chapter 11 review panels of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which allows corporations to sue governments when they change policies or regulations that could affect trade. A 2009 case brought to the NAFTA review panel by DOW Chemicals found that Quebec’s restrictions of certain toxic pesticides were considered a disguised trade barrier.

“It [TILMA] will dramatically restrict the ability of governments—including local governments—to act in the public interest,” said Murray Dobbin of the CoC.

Unlike NAFTA, in TILMA there is no limit on how many times a corporation may bring an issue to the dispute panel. If a regulation is found to be a “disguised barrier to trade,” foreign corporations may continue to sue the offending government until that regulation is changed. To avoid continual negative repercussions, governments may avoid implementing stronger standards and policies.

The CoC reported that “some US states have shown an interest in signing TILMA, which would lead to massive deregulation in Canada as we harmonize policies with the United States. TILMA thus becomes an issue of democracy and of deep integration with the US.” With the two agreements sharing many of the same clauses, the implementation of the CUPA forces many of TILMA’s clauses onto provinces, states, and municipalities who had little-to-no input into the agreement.

Canada is discussing a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Europe that the CoC says “is likely to put pressure on provincial governments to increase privatization, including in areas such as child care and public health care...municipal governments will also be forced to fall into line.”

Fraser Institute economist Amela Karabegovic and trade advisor Robert Knox wrote that “interprovincial barriers are, and will remain, a major roadblock in the current negotiations... the free-trade agreement with the EU is an opportunity for Canadian governments to finally resolve the remaining interprovincial barriers.” It becomes clear that the regulatory harmonizations that result from TILMA and the CUPA must take place for FTA negotiations to continue.

“The [G8] recognized in its Pittsburgh statement last year that ‘there are different approaches to economic development and prosperity,’ which is the same as saying that free trade, privatization and open markets don’t always work,” Stuart Trew of the CoC told The Dominion. “Harper disagrees with that idea and has made noises that he’d like the G20 to broaden its mandate to go after ‘protectionism in all its forms,’ which would include important national measures to protect the environment or help local industries grow up and compete.”

Dan Kellar is an organizer with AW@L and is co-host of AW@L Radio. He will see you in the streets of Toronto in June.

For up-to-the-minute G8/G20 news from the streets of Toronto, visit the Toronto Media Co-op.

CUPA chainsaw

True North

Tim McSorley — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 05:43:19 +0000

For up-to-the-minute G8/G20 news from the streets of Toronto, visit the Toronto Media Co-op.

True North, part I

True North, part II

Powers of Eight

dru — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:20:04 +0000

powersofeight.png

The G8 accounts for a small portion of the world’s population, but a majority of its power. Through their influence over international financial institutions and their economic and military dominance, the G8 countries shape the world’s economic structures.

Download a pdf version of this infographic.