While almost all of BC has been caught up in the drama of the Okanagan forest fires … and the human drama surrounding them, the RCMP has been busy. And I’m not talking about the work of their officers policing and securing the area or evacuating/assisting local residents.
For weeks, on the subject of free speech during the 2010 Olympics, the federal police force would reportedly only say it was considering establishing “optional safe assembly areas” for any protestors at unspecified locations.
But the RCMP and Vanoc have been very busy, fiddling around with their plans to restrict, control and, in my view, sideline those who will want to protest/speak out (on a variety of topics) while the world’s attention is directed at Vancouver/Whistler.
A story in the Vancouver Sun has now revealed more details of how those areas, formerly referred to as “free speech areas”, will be located and set up “in close proximity of all sports venues” . But still, of course, off to the side.
The supposed good news is that they will NOT be fenced … just designated.
But based on history, and the very nature of para-military forces like the RCMP or Vancouver city police, I worry that just the estblishement of “designated” areas will spell trouble for our civil liberties.
No matter what the rules or the brass say in advance of the event, I worry because front line officers, in the heat of the moment have repeatedly been shown in the past to have broken the rules .. and maybe even the law in dealing with protestors.
And they don’t really worry about any consequences, because I think they believe their political masters secretly approve their keeping the “troublemakers” out of the way.
And what are the consequences? Usually just a slap on the wrist and an admontion months or years later not to do it again. Until, of course, the next time they feeling trampling on rights/rules is justified: that’s my fear!
And my concern about that kind of cavalier attitude by police authorities is based on personal experience: going back many years … to the Seton Portage BC Rail blockade by natives in 1990.
I spent a week up there, in the small isolated native community near Lillooet, covering that protest. For several days, natives blocked the rail line in a dispute over land claims.
After BC Rail obtained an injunction ordering the line reopened, and the natives still refused to budge, the RCMP brought in a riot squad, armed with truncheons, shields and hard helmets, equipped with face guards to move the natives, including elders, and their blockade from the tracks.
But what I found most interesting is that, as the police lined up preparing to move in … decked out in their full riot gear … several had removed their name tag identifications.
So as the standoff with the natives simmered, I moved in with my cameraman, and confronted several of the officers:
“Why are you not wearing your I.D.?” I asked? “Going to crack a few heads and you dont want to be identified?”
None answered…. just stood there holding their truncheons and shields.
And the looks I got back as I walked the line made me very uncomfortable. But it had to be done. And I felt the fact they had removed their I.D.s’ , in VIOLATION OF THE RCMP’s OWN RULES for uniformed officers, was important.
Even more interestingly, the Officer in charge, who came over and asked me what I was doing as I walked down the line on camera, did NOTHING when I brought to his attention the obvious breaking of the most essential rule to allow identification of any “rogue” head-cracker .
So we could have had a situation where terrible force would have been unleashed, civil rights totally violated, excessive violence used on peaceful protestors .. and almost NONE of the victims could have identified their attackers in any way!
Fortuntely, the natives did not respond with violence to the situation: a few, including two elders, were carted off the tracks and arrested, but it was all carried out peacefully. However, several days later, a nearby BC Rail bridge was torched by an arsonist.
Meanwhile I had learned … and reported … an important lesson: some police are quite willing to break the rules … and no doubt the law as well … apparently sloughing off any concerns about public complaints. Perhaps they calculated all they would end up with anyway would be a slap on the wrist years later, if anyone did file a complaint, and that would only come after some hugely expensive drawn-out process.
Ho hum!
Nor should we forget APEC, when a protest zone was set up at UBC … and police openly harrassed, arrested and violated the civil rights of people … not even actively protesting … but who simply refused to clear sidewalks outside the protest zone.
So I worry that, with the establishment of approved protest areas, the police will excessively deny citizens the right of legitimate protest or even access to all kinds of other areas in the name of security concerns.
I am well aware of the difficulties our police forces can face when confronted by anarchists and other troublemakers, who WANT to disrupt events and interfere with the rights of those who do not share their views.
And I’m sure there are many of them already planning … even relishing … the idea of disrupting the 2010 games, and gaining worldwide media attention for themselves and their “causes”.
I will support legitimate actions by the police to remove or arrrest any violent protestors trying to deny the rest of us our rights to attend, enjoy, or celebrate the Games or entertainment events.
But the RCMP and Vancouver Police MUST NOT violate our laws and our civil rights in carrying out their responsbilities.
Freedom is Canada’s real GOLD accomplishment … and it must not be tarnished by police, Vanoc, provincial and federal bosses trampling on our civil rights … just so they can party.
Harv Oberfeld
14 responses so far ↓
1 genuine // Jul 21, 2009 at 11:40 pm
This will be a true test for democracy,everyone in the lower mainland should protest peacefully of course anywhere they like,just the notion of protest zone’s will prove the government in china as a legitimate entity,this is where campbell and harper would like to take us! to them we are worthless slobs, and ,can do to us what they like!If WE LET THEM?Just imagine suspending democracy for the games!fascists!Isn’t that what the vet’s, they pretend to honor on Nov 11th fought for!Man what a travesty ! The government might as well throw a bag of crap at us too, no note needed,just like those people(or should I say animals ) did to those poor unfortunate living in a shelter!Shame on you I pay taxes to help them,not to throw a party for those whom can afford one!What a treacherous world we live in!
2 LP // Jul 22, 2009 at 12:04 am
Harv,
Frankly I think you’re being a bit naive if for a moment you believe the anarchists and trouble makers from around the world aren’t going to be here to disrupt the games and embarrass our city and country.
The people out there who don’t partake in protest marches and the like, who actually are in the majority in this country, like myself, are quite okay with the steps the police find necessary to deal with these types of people.
Frankly I’m sick and tired of those who cannot peacefully protest, or for that matter can’t obey the law. And yes that includes sitting outside a designated area. Frankly they need to grow up and get a bloody life already.
If some free speech rights need to be restricted for a few dozen people for short period of time, due to a few dozen people who don’t respect the law, so be it.
We could spend all day debating the very long list of rights we think we have, when we really don’t – if you really want to get to the short and curlys.
(Response; Not sure if you msised it, but i wrote that I WOULD support the arrest of those who deliberateyl try to disrupt, block access etc… the anarchists. But I disagree with you that suspension of free speech can be justified. If you start allowing authorities to do that…where will it end? h.o.)
3 Norman Farrell // Jul 22, 2009 at 12:38 am
We can expect on one side will be police officers willing or designated to use violence against lead protesters. On the other side will be the career anarchists doing their best to goad the protesters into crossing lines of civil disobedience and promoting a fractious encounter.
Already, we have seen the beginnings of outrageous action on both sides – civic disruption and property damage by anarchists who oppose everything and intimidation and other violations by the police security corps.
The police only want to tame the lawbreakers and, with the usual enthusiasm, they are willing to break the law to achieve that goal.
4 Geof // Jul 22, 2009 at 1:24 am
LP writes that s/he is “sick and tired of those who cannot peacefully protest, or for that matter can’t obey the law.”
Then you should also be sick and tired of police who don’t obey the law. I think that was Harv’s whole point.
“If some free speech rights need to be restricted for a few dozen people for short period of time, due to a few dozen people who don’t respect the law, so be it.”
Illegally restricting free speech is violating the law. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
You seem to think that the threat of embarrassment is enough to excuse illegal curtailment of free speech. Speech – especially speech you disagree with, or I disagree with – is at the foundation of our democracy. I can’t imagine how mere embarrassment (particularly of something as abstract as a city or a country!) could even be in the same ballpark.
5 b00bear // Jul 22, 2009 at 5:17 am
Apparently our government and police see 2 different sides to free speech. How many times have pornographers been let off because it’s a matter of free speech. Sure, they have to see magazines like Hustler in plastic bags, but it’s still ok. As long as protesters are not impeding the flow of traffic in and out of the games or harassing anyone, they should be able to protest anywhere. Personally, I think they should stand quietly with their signs in the most visible places they can find. Some of the merry makers might need that extra warning that they could be tased to death.
6 genuine // Jul 22, 2009 at 5:44 am
Very good Jeff you said what I was going to write next. Thanx,two wrong’s will never make a right!
7 genuine // Jul 22, 2009 at 5:49 am
Very good Jeff you said what I was going to write next. Thanx,two wrong’s will never make a right!
Just like the embarrassment ,that’s going on with you know what,so they want to curtail our right to know through the court’s!
8 davidp // Jul 22, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Our children will be growing up to believe that “free speech zones” and anonymous cops are the norm.
And that is a scary thought.
9 blaffergassted // Jul 22, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Bob Mackin of 24 Hours deserves a hat tip, too.
His coverage of the Olympic security issues has been outstanding.
10 Henri P // Jul 22, 2009 at 8:00 pm
b00bear // Jul 22, 2009 at 5:17 am
Apparently our government and police see 2 different sides to free speech. How many times have pornographers been let off because it’s a matter of free speech.
OK I read it, please elaborate, in regards to the pornographers being let off.
11 genuine // Jul 22, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Maybe LP should move to china,where he could have the government watch him and all the people he’s afraid will be an embarrassment !Sheesh a perfect example of drinking the koolaid!People like him ,help people like them remove asset’s from the rest of us!
12 Agent Provocateur // Jul 23, 2009 at 3:17 am
Let us all not forget that the police will undoubtedly have undercover officers dressed as protesters stirring up the crowds to justify uniformed police arrest actions – a’la Montebello, Quebec 2007.
13 RS // Jul 23, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Free speech Big Bro.
Optional safe assembly areas or free speech areas, call ‘em what you may, either way you can be certain that they will be ringed with surveillance cameras. Perhaps the cameras may keep protesters safe from a good smack down from an overzealous jack-booted taser-happy riot cop, providing he is identifiable of course.
On the other hand, if one doth protest too much outside of an optional safe assembly area – an unsafe area – what then? Zappppp! Whack! Kerthunk! Whomp! Bammmm! Stomp! Grind! Clang! Bend over!
Furthermore, what’s to become of the surveillance cameras after the Olympics? Will the Vancouver Police Board and the VPD be so enamoured with the effective deployment and success of the cameras in quelling riots in the streets that the cameras become an Olympic legacy looking over us ‘n’ keeping us safe forevermore?
14 t // Jul 23, 2009 at 6:47 pm
When I read your article “RCMP Fiddles…” I got a feeling of de ja vu. I went looking on the ‘net and surprise, there it was, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerns_and_controversies_over_the_2008_Summer_Olympics#Protest_permits_and_zones
This wiki article includes a few of the news reports I cames across during the Bejijing olympics. It’s creepy to think the RCMP may take their lessons in security from a dictatorship.
Hope you don’t mind me adding the link Harvey.
(Response: Don’t mind at all adding to the discussion h.o.)
Leave a Comment
CAPTCHA Code is needed.