G8/G20 (originally posted June 27)

weekend was the mobilization of anti-apathetic individuals who refused
to stand by while world elites gathered in Toronto to discuss the
world’s future (sustainable economic growth, financial sector reform,
austerity and currency). There were groups from Amnesty International
to Green Peace to Red United to black bloc demonstrators. What I
already knew were the ways the media potentially operate by either
twisting stories to create explosive accounts or using
selective/subjective skills in observing. What I was unprepared for, on
June 26th, was the mobilization of 10,000 people to be distorted and
narrowed down to a few (in comparison) individuals who had chosen to use
violence, mainly against corporate structures (such as, Starbucks, Tim
Hortons, Rogers, Bell, American Apparel and Levis). Many activists
claim that our peaceful protests, for example OXFAM, Amnesty
International and Green Peace, had been negated in media because black
bloc groups chose to use violence –– what is striking here is the
negation to “criticize the workings of institutions, which appear to be
both neutral and independent... [with] political violence which has
always exercised itself obscurely thorough them” (Foucault,
“Foucault-Chomsky Debate”). What I see here is the reproduction of a
veil we help(ed) tailor for institutions, to mask operations that work
to reproduce dominant (mainstream) discourses of power.

How do the choices of institutions, particularly mainstream media, or
the bodies that in affect operate them, attempt to negate our message of
human rights and justice? With issues of human rights and in/justice,
which the dominant discourses dispute, ignore or adversely caused –– is
the reason why we believe we must advocate for them. In consideration,
why would we not attack them if they maintain the problems most
directly? Why do we most rigoursly attack those fighting for the same
side then those we are fighting? And not to defend the stance of those
who use actions that conflict with ‘ours’: ideas of peaceful and
non-violence –– we must rigoursly dissect what we’re fed.

On June 26th, after the “People’s First”, I sat in the University’s
lounge watching the news; I became confused by the reports that
“protestors turned violent”. If we examine this as a statistical study,
this would mean that the vast majority of non-violent-to-violent would
render the violent protesters statistical outliers as a few anomalies in
the data that do not fit the rest of the graph, thus rendering them
statistically insignificant. If a study was submitted as such, basing
its finding on the outliers – like the media has done – the study would
be scrutinized, criticized and rejected; and rendered invalid. Why has
the media reported on the outliers, the statistically insignificant?

I had realized there were two overarching ways to get immediate
up-to-date news; one the dominant discourse pervades; the other free to
everyone, upon writing this I fear the clandestine opportunities it
provides the State and those who act on behalf of the State to abuse and
exploit the latter. The first being media outlets including CTV, the
second being Social Media, in particular Twitter.

Learning from other attendees, social media and CTV that a demonstration
was still occurring at Queen’s Park, we became intrigued that violent
protestors were there when we had just been at that location (although I
am still unsure whether the violent protestors had been there or if
they were never there at all). We grabbed our cameras and set off.
When we arrived we saw a number of individuals speaking into a megaphone
discussing issues of political, economic and social justice. What we
also saw was a line of close to hundred riot officers lined up at the
South end of Central Queen’s Park (Wellesly ST W ). One individual had
said that the people had a right to be there and that they had a permit,
and it was designated place for peaceful assembly. This unrest was in
part because mobility was being restricted past Queens park toward
College St for example (for visual). For awhile, nothing happened; riot
police simply stood there and told bystanders they were not allowed to
pass through Wesley even to return home. After approximately 20
minutes, in the distance what resembled a large black mass was coming
towards the Queen’s/Wellesly. When they came close, it became evident
it was more riot police, over a hundred. It was very stunning to watch
them march in formation down city streets. (Which I photographed and
videotaped). I could only think of once I had seen something like this,
where forces marched like this not in training but in the streets, old
videos of police-states like this, USSR, Nazi Germany and China among
other militant dictatorships. These forces extended the line of riot
police covering Wellesly. Without warning the riot police advanced (in
line formation) on the crowd of peaceful protestors. Afraid of facing
violence by police, we began to retreat as well. The riot police had
pushed the protestors back towards St Joseph Street. I am unsure what
the intentions were of the riot police, but what had taken place either
deliberately or if it was consequential, was an infringement on our
“Fundamental Freedoms”: s. 2(b) right to “freedom of... expression” and
more violently our right to s. 2(c) “freedom of PEACEFUL assembly”.

Before I had left for Queen’s Park, media reports went on to say several
“businesses”, “banks” and “mom and pops” had been smashed. At first, I
thought violent demonstrators were attacking the most powerful
corporate ventures, the banking sector (BMO, RBC and even Money Mart),
and consumerist corporations (Levi’s, American Apparel and Starbucks),
but I was confused as to why anarchists would smash an independent,
non-corporate, usually ethically responsible business. During the night
I went for a walk with another AI AGM attendee and photographed the
destruction of private property, which was also ALL corporate. Confused
as to why they would have smashed mom and pop shops, I was even more
confused as to where they weren’t any visibly destroyed. Though I have
no evidence to say they smashed “mom and pops” stores I cannot
necessarily refute that they hadn’t either. Originally it was my brief
knowledge on anarchist groups, but Twitter raised my suspicions further
when none of the “tweets” mentioned any small businesses but rather
large corporate ones. This however was not the most alarming
realization that night. Individual had said through twitter and
word-of-mouth that something called “snatch-vans” were in effect. This
was described to me as police arbitrarily seizing individuals for
appearing suspicious; which to my knowledge an ‘unlawful arrest’. I
still was not completely sure what they were but when walking down Young
St, we saw a white van with an Air Miles logo across the passenger side
door. When looking more closely as the van slowed down I realized
officers were in the van. Based on what incidences that I have seen and
heard these occurrences are in violation of our Legal Rights guaranteed
in the Canadian Charter: s. 7 Everyone has the right to life, liberty
and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof
except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice; s. 8
everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or
seizure; s. 9 everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or
imprisoned. (In retrospect of accounts that happened in the makeshift
detention cages, I think it also worth examining s. 10 as well).

Today (June 27th), I watch the news to see CTV’s accounts of the
protests, Craig Kielburger (of Save Children Foundation) is providing a
special report. As he is the special host, he has a perfectly
orchestrated opportunity to plug our NGO issues, though he lists some
issues, he instead chooses to dedicate the bulk of the report feeding
the mainstream rhetoric by filling the majority of the report with
issues of “anarchist” “hoodlum” “vandals”. Reproducing his very
criticism he directs attention to destruction from last night rather
than our issues of Human Rights and Justice (such as Amnesty’s Demand
Dignity, End Poverty and Maternal Mortality). When we as peaceful
agents of political resistance criticize those who oppress and seek to
repress, we must ensure we do not reproduce the mainstream in our
apparently subversive actions. At this point I have lost a large amount
of faith in our State, police and legal system. I hope a independent
public inquiry takes place to correct through sanctions, injunction and
new measures to ensure something like this does not happen in our
democracy.

"If I can speak as a member of one minority to another. Stick with it!
Stick with it! With all your energies and abilities, play your full part
in this society which you have helped to build and insist on your
rights as members of it."
Pierre Trudeau