Police forces, I'd like to introduce you to YouTube...

With the G20 debacle fresh in our minds, many Torontonians are shaking their heads at the efforts of American city authorities and police forces to break up Occupy protests. Police in some cities have been witnessed beating peaceful protesters, kettling groups, and using tear gas and rubber bullets. Police forces are now toning down the violence somewhat, after a public outcry and drop in their approval ratings. Sound familiar, Toronto?

On Friday, a police officer at UC Davis used pepper spray on a group of protesters who were sitting on the ground, showing no signs of movement or threatening actions. In justifying the officer's action, this statement was issued:

"The students had encircled the officers," [UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza] said. "[The police] needed to exit. They were looking to leave but were unable to get out."

Oh, rilly? That's not what I'm seeing here:



Aside from the complete lack of violence or even threat, the officer (Police Lt. John Pike) sprays the group - with all the concern of a janitor spraying room deodorizer. Perhaps he's missing something that is clear at almost any point in the video: the number of students filming his action with smart phones (and even laptop web cams). The video proves the police chief wrong on a number of points:

• The students had not "encircled" the officers. The officers who are seen dragging away arrested protesters have a clear path away from the crowd. They were never "unable to get out".

• The police did not "need" to exit. They were unwelcome in the first place; it was the brutality exercised by one of their own members which (rightly) stirred the crowd, but even then there was no threat of violence.

• The pepper-spraying was in no way a defensive move. Lt. Pike clearly steps over the protesters who are sitting on the ground, turns back, advances on them, and turns the spray on them. It is clear in the video that at no time are the protesters following or advancing on him or any other officers.

• The police cannot have been unaware of the number of cameras trained on them. (Watch the video again, particularly toward the end.) Did they think their actions were not about to be posted to the net immediately, for all the world to witness?


And so, an open letter to UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza and - all other police chiefs.

Dear Police:

When one of your members commits an act of brutality against peaceful citizens, you need to admit to the error - immediately. You must punish the officer appropriately - and the only appropriate response for wanton disregard for the public's safety, well-being, and civil rights, is dismissal. And then you must promise the error will not be repeated, and you must ensure that the entire force is properly trained to keep that promise. Anything less than this will be met with the loss of your credibility, and the loss of any trust and faith the public might have in you.

Also - when you lie about what has transpired in a public crowd situation, there's not much chance you're going to get away with it. It's 2011 for crying out loud. Most of the population have video cameras in their pockets. Lying just makes you look incredibly stupid.


Sincerely,
the 99%

Occupy Toronto: Just Vote, and Everything will be OK.

Reading through Facebook posts and comments about Occupy Toronto, I came across this comment under a friend's post:

"I would like to know how many of the estimated 3000 protesters voted on May 2, 2011 and on October 6, 2011."

This is one of the right-wing's tactics: to portray the Occupy movement simply as a group of unemployed, disaffected youth who have no right to complain because they didn't vote. In fact, a friend of mine came across a SunTV "reporter" trying to push exactly this angle at Saturday's Occupy Toronto launch. My friend engaged the SunTV rep and challenged her on the smear attempt, and the resulting conversation almost came to blows; the story should be appearing on my friend's blog soon.

The truth of the matter is, democracy and voting are hardly relevant here, and to try to boil down the Occupy movement to voting both ignores the real problems and shows a clear lack of understanding of the movement. The reason for the lack of simple demands in these protests is that there is not a single protest, nor is there a single solution.


Here are some of the societal problems being protested:

• Lack of pay equity
• Growing disparity between employee and executive salaries
• Bonuses for executives in charge of failing companies
• Bonuses for executives at the same time workers' wages are cut
• Shrinking and stolen pensions
• Lack of health care
• Lack of senior care and housing
• Rising tuitions
• Student debt
• Existing jobs requiring graduate degrees
• Dearth of jobs for qualified graduates
• Lack of affordable housing
• Lack of education spending
• Classroom overcrowding and quality of education
• Cuts to social services
• Protection for the environment

This was what I came up with just off the top of my head. Some of these problems are interrelated; others require unique solutions. Some can be dealt with through government action and legislation; others require voluntary reform within businesses and industries. And implementing solutions to all of it would be nothing short of revolutionary.

Remember when the HST was proposed in Ontario? We were told that it would simplify things for businesses, which would save money and eventually pass on savings to the consumer. Are you enjoying all the lower prices now, and all the money you are saving?

The point is: government and businesses don't act on these things without a push - and anyone who thinks it's just a matter of voting in liberal/democratic governments to save us from conservative policies is naive. As quality of life worsens for people all over the world, these protests will build and continue.

What I Am Thinking About on 9/11.

Today I am thinking of Chile. I am thinking of 3,000 dead and tens of thousands tortured. I am thinking of a US-backed coup. I am thinking of the the psychological damage done to a people by a dictator they didn't elect.

Today I am thinking of 3,000 dead in NYC and hundreds of thousands dead in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am thinking of innocence, hatred, compassion, and retaliation. I am thinking of shock, awakening, pride, flags, and nationalism. I am thinking of terrorism by extremists who see their way of life threatened, and terrorism by governments which see their neoliberal agendas threatened.

Today I am thinking of how crisis brings out the best in us. And I am thinking of how crisis brings out the worst in us.

Today I am thinking of the love of people who opened their hearts and their arms to strangers who struggled with the anguish of losing loved ones. And I am thinking of the love of people who are fighting for an end to war against strangers under attack on the other side of the world.

Today I am thinking of our ability to look past differences and show empathy for strangers who are traumatized. And I am thinking of our ability to look past complexity and blame a situation on skin colour, religion, and clothing customs when we are traumatized.

Today I am thinking of lives under attack by guns and bombs, of the loss of life, and the need for understanding of the root causes of extremism to prevent futher attacks. And I am thinking of human rights under attack by governments and their laws, of the loss of freedoms, and the need for education, awareness, and action and protests to show our governments that we will not allow their attacks to go unchallenged.

A Reminder for Rob Ford Supporters

"No service cuts, guaranteed!"
- Mayor Rob Ford


"No major service cuts."
- Mayor Rob Ford


"No service cuts in 2011."
- Mayor Rob Ford


"These are not service cuts but efficiencies."
- Mayor Rob Ford

Letter to Toronto City Council, re: Giorgio Mammoliti

Dear Councillors:

In light of Councillor Mammoliti's renewed calls for city de-funding of Pride Toronto, I want to make sure you are aware of his behaviour on Saturday.

Of course, Pride is a diverse and inclusive event. But I am dismayed that an elected representative of the city attended apparently with the sole purose of looking for evidence he could use to call for the withdrawal of city support for a festival which attracts millions of dollars in business and tax money for our cash-strapped city. And unlike those of you who attended the Pride Parade on Sunday, Councillor Mammoliti did not have the courtesy to express well wishes to the city's LGBTQ communities, even though he spent considerable time at Pride, before and during the Saturday march.

I felt it important to draw your attention to some video clips I took of the events; links are provided below. You can see in these clips that the contingent Councillor Mammoliti was following was entirely peaceful. His focus on the phrase "Israeli apartheid" is disingenuous, as you are aware that the city manager's report has not found any evidence of hatred or discrimination through the use of that phrase.


Video links
-----------

Peaceful march

Mammoliti stalking the Dyke March

Mammoliti desperately searching for hatred, and finding none

From the beginning of this controvesy, Councillor Mammoliti has demonstrated intent on holding Pride Toronto and certain LGBTQ groups to a different standard than others. This is clearly discriminatory behaviour on his part, and he should be held accountable.


The above was emailed to all on city council except for Mammoliti himself and both Fords. I received personal responses (not auto-responses) - some polite, others supportive - from councillors:
Mihevc, Grimes, Kelly, Vaughan, McConnell, Layton, Matlow, and Bailao.

Councillor Vaughan added this comment:
"It was interesting to watch the Toronto Police riding alongside of the march. If a so called 'hate crime' was being committed you'd have to wonder why the police stood by and did nothing."


The only sour note was a response from Councillor Del Grande. Referring to Mammoliti in the videos, he writes:
"Thank you for your e-mail.

He is on the side not interfering with the parade. He has not violated any law."


My response:

Councillor Del Grande:

You're right, Councillor Mammoliti has not violated any law. If you want to talk about the legal aspects of this controversy, the recent city manager's report stated that the use of the phrase "Israeli Apartheid" is not hate speech and is not discriminatory. The group that Councillor Mammoliti was targeting on Saturday is a group supporting LGBTQ Palestinians; they had every right to be in the march and did nothing wrong. They also had every right to free speech - which includes the right to utter the words "Israeli Apartheid". Councillor Mammoliti's support for pro-Israel groups and victimization of pro-Palestinian groups is discriminatory - as is Toronto City Council's decision to withhold funding from Pride Toronto until after the festivities were over (no other group which receives city funding is subject to this kind of treatment).

In your decisions regarding Pride Toronto, it is my hope that you will abide by the law and the city's own anti-discrimination policy when you represent all the residents of your ward - including those who identify as LGBTQ.

Why I'm Not Wearing a Poppy This Year

I used to be a schoolteacher, and every Remembrance Day, I would teach that we remember the brave people who fought for us, but also to remember the tragedies of history so as not to repeat them. This was particularly important, to ease children's fears of death brought on by discussion of war. I taught the children how to make their own poppies out of construction paper.

Remembrance Day has always been important to me. Being of Japanese descent, my Father and uncles - all born in Canada - were imprisoned during WWII by their own government, along with the entire Japanese Canadian community, and when they were released, they pressed for the right to take part in Canada's war efforts to prove their loyalty to Canada, and when granted that right, they did just that. I've always felt obliged to wear a poppy in respect to those who fought to protect our country and our freedoms - especially because a number of those people are my own relatives.

But in recent years I've become aware of the controversies over modern wars, and Canada's involvement of them - not really wars at all, but unprovoked invasions. Canada did not send troops to Iraq, although Chretien wanted to; he was stopped by public outcry. Canada did, however, send troops to Afghanistan to free up American troops to fight in Iraq. The atrocities committed against Iraqis and Afghanis continue to be revealed by a reluctant mainstream media. Nevertheless, the majority of Canadians believe that the Iraq invasion was wrong, that American war resisters are right to refuse to take part, and that Canadian troops must be brought home from Afghanistan. These "wars" are not about conquest or defending our rights and freedoms; they are about stealing resources and keeping the war economy healthy.

On the other side of these facts is a Canadian government which is waging a propaganda campaign with attempts to conceal and minimize stories of our soldiers who have died senselessly. It seems we are reminded to honour the brave men and women who fight for us at every turn, with "wear red" campaigns, "support our troops" ribbons on our cars, highways renamed as memorials, memorial coins in our pocket change (special designs on circulation coins: a loonie, a nickel, and at least three different quarters), and even in the cancellation stamp on my mail this morning. Of course, these campaigns - all showing government involvement - are simply well-intentioned attempts to honour our soldiers. Aren't they?

With so many of these questionable actions - while the government tries to bolster flagging support to keep troops in Afghanistan, it is no wonder the poppy is called into question. So I was delighted, a couple of years ago, to learn about the "peace poppy": a white poppy which specifically emphasizes the message of peace - which I'd felt was an integral part of our familiar red poppy all along. But was I wrong? I'd gotten the impression that the white poppy didn't go over well with veterans' groups; this year, the Royal Canadian Legion, which owns the trademark to the poppy, is threatening to sue distributors of the white poppy. A Legion spokesperson says, "The use of the poppy for anything other than remembrance is not acceptable." Come again? Since when is promoting peace in opposition to remembering our war dead?

The really fucked up thing here is that, growing up in a capitalist society, I'd accept the economic greed argument - that the Legion owns the trademark and wants to protects its poppy sales - before I'd want to accept that veterans are arguing against peace. But that appears to be what is happening. In another of many articles on this issue published over the last week, one veteran criticized those wearing white poppies, saying that they had probably never fought in a war.

Why is it that so many people today think that it is acceptable to try to shut down debate by painting those they disagree with as unpatriotic, or uncaring? Trying to take someone else's voice away - by implying that they haven't the right to engage in debate - is a form of censorship. Correct me if I'm wrong, but freedom of speech is one of the rights that was fought for and protected; we are not going to violate that right for the sake of this little argument.

The whole issue has left a bad taste in my mouth. I no longer feel any sense of obligation to put on a red poppy, and if people can't understand the very elementary message of the white one, well, I won't wear that one either. No one can take my feelings or beliefs away from me, and I won't have them misconstrued by people standing on street corners selling plastic flowers.

And so, on November 11, 2010, instead of a poppy, I am wearing this blog post.

To those who would judge me for having bare coat lapels: judge not, or be prepared for an earful.

To my Dad, who fought to protect Canada, and our freedoms: all my love, respect, and appreciation. I'm so proud of you. I always have been.

To the American war resisters - who are putting a human face on an illegal and immoral US invasion: all my love and support. You are the kind of people this world needs, and to those of you I've met: we're lucky to have you in Canada. On Remembrance Day, we should be remembering the horrors of war, present as much as past - and that means talking about your part in history. You give me hope for our future.

G20 Protests: Why the Police did Nothing to Stop Black Bloc Tactics

As I walked home alone in the dark after an event last night, I came to an odd realization. I felt completely safe on empty streets or where there were other people. The only time I felt in any danger was in the presence of police. Given the events of the G20 weekend, I was justifiably worried that I might be beaten or arrested, simply for being out in public. The horror stories of police brutality continue to spread by the hour - on Twitter, Facebook, blogs - and even in the mass media. (Lesson to Toronto police: if you want the public onside, best not to assault and arrest journalists.)

There is so much to write about the abuses of power and violations of civil liberties over the past few days, but the most important issue has to do with the black bloc protests, and how they were allowed to happen. It is becoming very clear that police had infiltrated the ultra-left and knew what was going to happen. More than a billion dollars was spent on security - much of it for a 19,000-strong security force. No doubt you've seen photos which clearly reveal the scale of this show of force; early in the week, police looked as though they outnumbered demonstrators at the smaller rallies. Police had a newly purchased water cannon at their disposal. On Saturday, hundreds of police in full riot gear (helmets and shields) were backing up masses of officers in regular uniform. So how is it that a couple of hundred vandals were able to burn a cop car and break windows all the way up Yonge Street?

The answer can only be that the police wanted it to happen. Even if you reject the mounting evidence that agents provocateurs were part of the black bloc and were active in starting the violence, there is no argument which can satisfactorily explain how such a relatively small number of people could roam so freely and visibly, doing their damage. But why would the police allow it? Obviously, the mass media visuals - the same shot of the burning police car played over and over as nauseum - were needed to convince a gullible public that the obscene overspending was necessary. But there is a much more important reason: the police and government needed justification to attack the legitimate, peaceful protests.

Let's face it: a young man wearing black and smashing a store window is an anomaly, and insignificant in the long term. In my six years of participation in major rallies, demonstrations, and marches in this city, I have never before witnessed this - or any other - kind of violence. The store window will be replaced, and the act has no impact on any government or politican, local or national.

But the 25-40,000 peaceful demonstrators are another story. The young man employing black bloc tactics is nowhere near as threatening to our authorities as the mother who is calling for Harper's government to change its policy on maternal health, or the young student who is decrying Canada's local and global inaction on environmental issues, or the First Nations elder who is calling for justice for continuing atrocities against the First Nations, or the labour unionist who is demanding protection for pensions and working conditions. Even more frightening is the addition of mainstream, middle-class folk who have never taken part in a protest, but who have been so incensed by the government spending of our tax dollars on this summit that they made a point of coming out - despite the rain and especially despite the fearmongering all week long about sound cannons, water cannons, tear gas, and other police toys at the ready.

Black bloc tactics are employed only at large scale G20-type events where the whole world will be watching. But the black bloc protesters don't even have demands or a message. It is the peaceful protesters who will be back with the same messages, growing in numbers, getting more of the public onside as Harper's assault on our social services, rights, and freedoms continues. And while the black bloc protesters retreat into their isolated world, the protesters with real messages continue to talk every day, to raise consciousness, and build support.

So the vandals were allowed to do their thing, and then the police swooped in and began attacking legitimate protesters (and even passersby). People were threatened, beaten, arrested, and traumatized. Reports from those who were taken into the makeshift detention facility are appalling. Human rights violations were rampant. Those who have been released tell of younger, less experienced protesters (who may be less aware of their rights) being clearly targeted for intimidation. This is how the authorities will attempt to shut down dissent: by traumatizing people so badly that they will never take part in a protest again. And indeed, judging from some of the first-hand reports, they have probably succeeded in scaring a few of these protesters away permanently.

But these tactics have strengthened the resolve of many to keep fighting - and likely awakened many more to the issues that were being protested, as well as spawning new discussions and protests over police brutality and violations of civil liberties. While no protests had been planned after the G20 ended on Sunday, more than 4,000 people showed up on Monday evening in front of Toronto Police headquarters for a rally decrying the police actions - an event called on less than 24 hour's notice. Another gathering is planned for tonight to bring together the victims of police violence, to share stories and show solidarity.

Harper, McGuinty, and police chief Bill Blair are likely congratulating themselves on a mission accomplished. But for all their collective cunning, they have not been very smart. There are already calls for a public inquiry into the debacle of Toronto's G20. Even if there is no public inquiry, social networking and YouTube are publicizing the issue, spreading images and video and starting discussions about agents provocateurs, hired troublemakers, and ulterior motives on the part of both police and government. The movement of average citizens demanding change is now poised to grow, despite - or perhaps because of - police brutality and repression.