Canada: Bush Protesters Teargassed, Shot w/ Rubber Bullets

Run time: 06:33 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpoRxPxAtJQ   Posted on YouTube: August 21, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: August 21, 2007 By DU Member: Hissyspit Views on DU: 2527

 
August 20, 2007 - CBC NEWS

Protest coverage is at 3:58 mark.

:sarcasm:

There were nearly 1000 protesters and 100 or so that started throwing billard balls and rocks at the police got all the attention.

If they had maintained peaceful protest all together and hadn't broken ranks, the message would have been stronger and if the police had done the same to non-violent protesters, like Calfornia police did to a Cinco De Mayo celebration this year in the US, I could be totally outraged.

The thing is police are human beings too with a job of upholding the public safety and if protesters heading for a sumit of world leaders start demonstrating violence I think self defense is justified.

weren't provacateurs? I wouldn't be surprised.

Not that I am unsympathetic with the urge to forcefully breach the barricade. They are citizens demanding access to their elected officials being denied their rights.

However, those that are violent put the whole process in a dim light because the fear of a mob scene justifies the presence of the police and the protective fence.

Had 100,000 been there throwing only their voices instead of rocks, it would have been a better testament to the real message. The people are sick and tired of being jerked around. We aren't going away and we aren't going to let you get away with these things.

You were thousands and thousands marching in Washington, assembled so peacefully that most of you restricted themselves to a "Free Speech Zone" (very Orwellian, in my mind). And the coverage you got was, to say the least, minimalist, if not completly biaised.

I wasn't among those who threw billard balls but I could have been. I was just in the middle of that group. They started firing tear gas way before anyone threw anything. In fact, the billard balls/rocks/anything they could manage to bring were a weak response to the tear gas nades the riot police shot (twice I think and then a couple more). Lot of pepper spray on those who got close enough, as well.

Pacifism has its limits, but I understand it's not a popular view here. Still, you do not bring down empires simply by staging peaceful sit-ins.

As for the rubber bullets, I've heard some were fired and a dozens were injured but it wasn't systematic.

On edit: "No provocateurs", as in "planted". Quebec has a very active anarchist movement, at least, by american standard.

doesnt the very notion go against the beliefs of anarchy?

want to make a stand ? then every one of those thousands of people should have become violent. not just a handfull. because i guarentee EVERYTIME that the handful will be singled out and then the whole group of thousands gets the rep of being violent.

if they did start with the tear gas first then i think people had every right to strike back, but if it was the wishes of organisors(if there were any) to remain peaceful then it shoulda stayed that way regardless.

pacifism may not always work, but neither does hurting and trying to kill people either. so just remember that as well before you go spouting that change never came peacefully.

people always want to use their fist instead of their head.
only shows ignorance on the part of both those who threw things and the police(which was expected from them).

I'll give only one answer to your uninformed and off-topic rant against anarchism.

1)Most anarchists are of the anarcho-syndicalist movement. Organization doesn't go against anarchism: au contraire, real anarchists wanted/want the people to organize themselves collectively. Libertarism is, by far, the most active part of the anarchist movement and most anarchists you will meet (admitting you actually don't "stay away from them") are "libertarians" or anarcho-socialists, if you prefer. Since the term "libertarian" has lost its original meaning in most English speaking countries, here's a "good" definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Organization doesn't necessarily mean having leaders. A good number of anarchist organizations recognize the general assembly (all members of said organization) as the only authority and use the imperative mandate (from french: mandatement impératif, first used during the Paris Commune of 1871) to get things done. That means you give a well defined task to someone or a group of people and they have to give you answers on how it's going, depending on the nature of the mandate. You then have the power to revoke said mandate at anytime.

2)You speak as if all of these people (at the protest) were united under a same banner, working in the same organization. We had people from all over USA & Canada and lot of different groups. They have the right to protest as they see fit and not take part of any violent action. I'm in favor of a plurality of tactics, ranging from petitions and calls to sit-ins, peaceful protests and, yes, more violent actions. It's as if you were denying the very repressive nature of the States we live in. Can't you see that these people's violence is already a response to the daily violence committed by the State and its police? Anyway, it's getting besides the point: people sure can protest the way they want. If pacifism is your thing, then so be it.

3)There were organizations there and they issued (or collectively chose ;)) directives for their members but there was no leading group/coalition. On a sidenote, you can't "own" a protest. It's not yours to have. Every protest will have its number of radicals. What we consider today as radical was fairly moderate compared to what happened in the past. A handful of billard balls compared to tear gas grenades and rubber bullets? Please. We're far from a rain of Molotov cocktails.

4)I didn't say change never comes peacefully, read again. I said *I* think pacifism has its limits. Even the struggle for India's libertation, led mainly by Gandhi, benefitted from the armed resistance of many: the British occupation lost many soldiers during that time and it was an additional pressure. Like I said, I recognize a plurality of tactics and I advocate the death of no one but we didn't disarm and defeat the fascists and nazis by hosting peaceful sit-ins.

5)Judging by the security present at the protest, our number and the fact that there was a lot of old people and a couple children, I chose my fight and decided to remain totally peaceful. While I respect their right to respond to the police's provocation/agressive behaviour, I didn't see it as a wise move and certainly not one I would have done in these conditions. But then again, that's just me.

Note: Pacific protests worked better when we had real journalists, ones that would do real reporting and were mainly against wars, etc. Still.

as the following

an•ar•chism

Pronunciation: (an'ur-kiz"um),
—n.
1. a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
2. the methods or practices of anarchists, as the use of violence to undermine government.
3. anarchy.



an•ar•chist

Pronunciation: (an'ur-kist),
—n.
1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
2. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.



by the way , i agree with your 'note'


im sorry but, i just dont believe in violence. and i dont believe in no government. itd be nice if people were actually capable of living in a world without government ... but we arent.. because people are complete morons with no sense of responsibility or respect for each other.

It seems that the decision to "bring" a "billiard ball" occurs long before the police do anything.

Bringing down an empire requires the destructive force. Then you have to rebuild.

Getting your country back requires trying to keep it in tact if at all possible. Hard to say if we've passed that point.

In the US we need to remain peaceful because if we go to anything that seems like an uprising it gives *ush the green lite to install himself as emperor (May 9th decree).

Of course, coverage on the police starting it didn't seem to make the msm, so it's negative publicity. Could be worth it, then again, could make us look like hypocrites.

but a couple old guys outed some (likely) cop provocateurs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eprogressiveindependent%2Ecom%2Fdc%2Fdcboard%2Ephp%3Faz%3Dshow%5Ftopic%26forum%3D103%26topic%5Fid%3D31765%26mesg%5Fid%3D31765


Edit> One of the "cop's" mask came off. Wonder if they can get a still and ID him.

Guess I must have kept on walking. The two guys in black with army pants seriously look like planted provocateurs, I totally agree. They're pretty massive compared to the other "anarchists/protestors" around (I'm assuming most people in black 'round 'em are anarchists). Good job outing them if they were. I haven't met a lot of weightlifting anarchists. :D

As for the idiotic reply above saying they did bring billard bills so they were obviously looking for a fight, I guess we would then have to apply the same standard to police officers, eh? Tear-gas grenades, pepper spray, guns, live & rubber ammo, tasers, full protective gear on, etc. It's a protest, not a walk in the woods. I had my walking stick, a flag and a bandana. Was I looking for a fight? Not at all. But you never know when pepper spray/tear gas is fired at you and I prefer to be ready.

That being said, bringing billard balls isn't a great idea since they have shields. They'll barely notice it so if you're looking for a fight, it kinda sucks.

Anyway. Getting late. ;)

theres always some group of so called "anarchist" who ironically PLAN TOGETHER as a GROUP under a LEADER to come and try and destroy and break things. they just want to hurt people and things. they have no real interest in anything except destruction.
it happens at almost any large protest.

jackasses.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=48499&mesg_id=48568

Now, I know Americans are not very educated on political movements which are outside the center-right to extreme-right spectrum to which they've been accustomed, but there is a limit. If you don't know what the term Anarchism means in a political context, please shut the hell up.

I've had a number of Anarcho-syndicalist friends, and frankly, they were probably the most peaceful people to have at demonstrations (unless some neo-nazis show up, then all hell breaks loose...).

I'd be very surprised if it were Anarchists who did the throwing; it's possible, but unlikely. It's more likely just people angry at their government bypassing the will of the people to enter into an agreement which could never pass through the House of Commons (sounds familiar)? Plus, the police in Quebec has something of a hair-trigger problem (I've been in a few demonstrations myself back in the day...), so the report that the police drew first blood is quite believable.

ive been to some protests in my day, and its always young kids screaming "anarchy!" and waering the anarchy A on their clothes somewhere who are always trying to fight with someone. sorry, but ive seen it to many times.
whether they are planted there or not, they claim to represent an anarchist movement. dont tell me what ive seen isnt so.

i suggest YOU go watch video someone posted of a union leader stopping these jackasses from starting a fight with the police.

who knows, maybe the anarchist jackasses in the U.S. are different than the ones up north, but i doubt it.

Teenagers and Agent Provocateurs who scram "Anarchy!" are NOT the same as Anarchists. So before you paint a entire movement with a simplistic brush, educate yourself. This would be like saying all American liberals are like Ward Churchill, or that all American conservatives are like Fred Phelps.

BTW, if you notice the ease with which the police take away the so-called "anarchists" in the video, you'll understand why the Union Leader and the real Anarchist were screaming "Police", "Police" at the three agents provocateur. It's a common tactic used by police services everywhere.

But the SPP and the idea of the NAU;

Tyrants and Traitors: The “Evolution by Stealth” of a North American Union
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10664

"How it works is that the agendas and initiatives under the SPP, which literally cover every aspect of our society, from integration of trade laws, economies, defense, (and with that foreign policy), emergency response, education, transportation, immigration, health and environmental regulations, resources, energy, law enforcement, intelligence, ID cards and a single currency, all these initiatives are not listed as being under a “treaty”, because a treaty would have to go through the three countries’ respective Parliaments and Congressional bodies, and therefore be subjected to examination and debate, and thus, become public. So, the participants call SPP a “dialogue”, and in actuality work through merging the bureaucracies of our three countries, working through the different branches of government where they propose different initiatives, which, in turn, the Executive branch (Prime Minister’s Office and Cabinet/ White House and Presidential Administration) pushes and approves, stating that they are “Canadian”, or “American” initiatives, but in reality are “harmonizing” all the changes to be integrated with all three North American countries, to more easily merge us into a North American Union, secretly and without the public being aware. The idea is that they want to move this process of integration so far along without public knowledge that by the time the public becomes aware, remember they state that we must be in this “North American Community” (Union), by 2010, at which time it will be far too late for the public to oppose it, as it will have already become a reality. The ‘No-fly’ list is just an example of this process."

SPP is built around secrecy and US military command - law expert

Sovereignty rhetoric contradicted by turnover of controls on military and immigration

Michael Byers says SPP is part of a larger process that threatens Canadian sovereignty and autonomy.OTTAWA, August 20, 2007: The agreement's title is classic framing: "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (SPP) conjures up comfortable images. Michael Byers says the agreement under discussion this week by Canadian, US and Mexican leaders Harper, Bush and Calderon should more properly be framed as a secret agreement to hand sweeping military, immigration and border control of all three countries over to the US. On Sunday, Byers, the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia told a standing-room-only forum in Ottawa about the politics and persuasion connected with the agreement under discussion behind the barricades this week at Montebello, Quebec.

I want to begin by welcoming the civil servants who have been sent to keep track of what's going on here. Like you, we love our country; unlike the people who are gathering in Montebello this week, we have nothing to hide.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership did not begin as a phenomenon after September 11, 2001. It was part of a trend that predates that time. But the proponents of North American integration seized upon 9/11 as an opportunity to advance their cause. And some of those proponents in Canada were very overt about their aspirations in the weeks and months after the terrorist atrocities in New York City and Washington, DC.

SNIP

The proponents of closer military integration could not believe their luck when Stephen Harper was elected. And very shortly after Mr. Harper came to power, they released their final report... which sets out four different options for the closer integration of the Canadian and US military. Most of the report is concerned with public relations, noting that Canadians are particularly attached to sovereignty.

SNIP

When the report actually came out and was put up on the website of the Bi-National Planning Group, some smart people, including possibly the Prime Minister of Canada, decided that you were not yet ready for this. That somehow it wasn't the time to make the public case for the full integration of Canadian and US forces because Mr. Harper didn't get that majority he so desperately desired. And so it was shuffled away once again, it disappeared off the website, and the Bi-National Planning Group was shut down, and who knows what they're talking about in Montebello.

But something did happen, and I'm talking about Afghanistan.... We are seeing the implementation in theatre of precisely the kind of planning that was going into the Bi-National Planning Group. We are seeing the Canadian Forces being given more and more equipment. We're even buying new tanks. We're seeing the integration of attitudes and rules of engagement with respect to issues like the treatment of detainees. Why did we not adopt the Western European approach to detainee transfer rights, following models that were provided to us by the British, the Dutch and the Danish? Because Washington wanted to do it another way. And why should we volunteer for the most dangerous mission in Afghanistan, a forward-leaning, war- fighting search and kill mission supported by US airstrikes and working in tandem with a US-led and -commanded mission that is not part of the NATO command?

Why have 67 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan? Why did Private Simon Longtin die today? The simple explanation, and it's only a partial explanation, is that there are people who want to transform the Canadian Forces into a miniature version of the US Marine Corps and want Canada to only choose missions that involve fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States; that want us to acquire equipment that integrates seamlessly with the US military, including in the relatively near future new F35 fighters. The same people who will tell you that peace-keeping is dead, that we really don't need new search-and-rescue aircraft in the second largest country on Earth, and who will tell you that those who stand up for the rights of detainees are expressing disrespect and a lack of support for the brave young Canadian men and women who serve this country in whatever mission they're given because they love this country just as much as you and I.

http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=0081

Thanks.