Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Black Bloc Taints Anti-Olympic Movement
Destructive tactics fail to attract public sympathy for the cause and alienate moderate activists
The shambolic and small group of black-clad anarchists who threw a newspaper box at the downtown Hudson's Bay Co. store on the first day of the Olympics -- shocking Olympic revellers queuing for fuzzy red mittens -- did more than crack a store window.
Black-clad anarchists who vandalized the Bay's downtown store caused friction in the anti-Olympic movement. Many activists did not agree with the hardcore tactics.
(Photo: Stuart Davis/Vancouver Sun) They splintered the unity of the far-left anti-Olympic protest against the "Olympic industry" and athletes such as Alexandre Bilodeau and Maelle Ricker going for gold on "stolen native land."
They also further marginalized the Olympic Resistance Network, the main protest group, which had already failed to connect with middle-class left-liberal people in Vancouver who shared some of its concerns over spending billions of dollars on the Olympics rather than ending poverty.
The violent tactics of the black-bloc anarchists, a fringe subculture within a fringe political sub-culture, sparked a fierce debate in the anti-Olympic movement.
Many left-wing posters on various websites have even wondered whether the anarchists (whether they are true anarchists is a subject too complex to discuss here) were agents provocateurs assigned by the police to deep-six the anti-Olympic cause.
The division caused by the street-fighting on the morning of Saturday, Feb. 13, produced a farcical moment last week when B.C. Civil Liberties Association executive director David Eby was struck by a pie in the face for having told reporters that he was "sickened" by the riot.
The pie-attack came just before Eby spoke at a public debate about the street riots.
The BCCLA official went on to denounce the black-bloc types, who had comically argued that their vandalism was an attack on 'the elites."
"If there was any damage to the status quo by Saturday's tactics, it was fleeting," Eby said.
"What was not fleeting was the damage caused by those tactics to public support for the wider Olympic accountability effort and criticism of overspending on police by 2010."
Eby said at the debate that many people are uneasy about staging an "Olympic spectacle" while the city's homeless numbers increase.
"But will Saturday's tactics encourage them to try to understand us?" Eby said. "Or will it give them the excuse they need to ignore us and go on partying?"
The black bloc, a tactic used by some self-styled anarchists, typically involves wearing black clothing and often balaclavas to avoid identification. The tactic was developed in Europe in the '80s by anti-nuclear activists and gained notoriety during the Battle of Seattle when a small group of young, hardcore anarchists broke away from the much larger anti-World Trade Organization protest and vandalized Starbucks, the Gap and other chain retailers.
The black-bloc action in Seattle sparked debate in the anti-globalization movement over such tactics -- and has done so again in Vancouver.
Chris Shaw, the Vancouver General Hospital medical researcher who has become one of the city's most prominent anti-Olympic activists, said during the debate last week that the black-bloc tactics had sabotaged the protest movement.
Shaw said the rioting pulled the media's focus away from the "Olympic industry" and Vancouver's social problems and onto protest violence.
The street-fighting, he added, was a "wet dream" for the Integrated Security Unit, which handles all policing matters related to the Olympics.
The black-bloc brawlers created an image of protesters, Shaw said, as a "bunch of black-clad people who hate kittens and rainbows and everything else -- and just want to riot in the street."
Both Eby and Shaw were heckled at the debate for not adhering to an informal agreement to respect "diversity of tactics," which is code for not criticizing fellow protesters who damage property or assault the police or bystanders.
Other anti-Olympic leaders have defended the black-bloc anarchists and their decision to mask their identities with balaclavas.
Harsha Walia, a key Olympic Resistance Network (ORN) activist, has argued that the Zapatista rebels in Chiapas, Mexico wore similar masks (as if B.C. is a place of widespread poverty where labour activists and left-wing politicians are murdered). She also said -- contrary to Eby and Shaw -- that these tactics can help spur mass movements (as if Vancouver is on the verge of class warfare rather than in the middle of the biggest and giddiest party it's ever seen.)
Sean Condon, editor of Megaphone, a newspaper sold by low-income people, wrote on a local website that most Canadians are turned off by the direct-action tactics of the anarchists.
"Most Canadians live comfortable and peaceful lives and while they might sympathize with those that do not, they lack the necessary connection ... needed to prompt them to start smashing corporate symbols or challenging the police."
The debate has extended also to whether it was smart politics to focus demands for social change around the demonization of the Olympics, which has clearly brought delight to the masses.
Derrick O'Keefe, a peace activist and member of the ORN, wrote on a local website that the anti-Olympic movement failed to take into account that the Olympics also appeal to British Columbians who had misgivings about staging the Games in Vancouver.
"The fact is that many, if not the majority of those critical of the Games ... still enjoy watching the world's greatest hockey players or going out to see a free show, or just walking around and seeing and meeting folks from around the world," Keefe said.
The challenge of appealing to a broad demographic by attacking the Olympics was evident during the opening ceremony at BC Place Stadium.
The protest only attracted about 1,500 people, a small number considering the more than five years organizers had to rally supporters -- and considering the tens of thousands of people who have turned out for peace and political demonstrations in Vancouver and Victoria in recent decades.
If the protesters had a poor Olympics, the Vancouver police department must be feeling like it won a gold medal. Even the BCCLA's Eby, often a strong critic of the VPD, has praised its restraint in handling dissent during the Olympic period, especially during the protest outside BC Place Stadium.
He also said that "there was a tone set up in the lead-up to the Olympics about not wanting to have a repeat of APEC and I think the police heard that message and responded to it."
RCMP officers at the 1997 APEC Summit in Vancouver were criticized in the media and by a public inquiry for using excessive force, including pepper-spraying and pre-emptive arrest, against demonstrators.
Eby and other civil libertarians may have wanted to avoid another APEC, but it's unclear whether some of the more hardcore members of ORN shared that sentiment.
During the BC Place standoff between protesters and police at Beatty and Robson streets, some of the protesters seemed to be trying to provoke the police into using APEC-style force. This minority of demonstrators verbally abused the police when they weren't spitting or spraying vinegar or hurling objects at them.
"There was a deliberate attempt to provoke the police into an over-reaction," VPD Deputy Chief Steve Sweeney said. "But it also failed."
Sweeney said the VPD learned from the APEC episode and now tries to minimize its presence at demonstrations, with police riding bikes or wearing baseball caps rather than coming on heavy from the get-go with Darth Vader-style riot gear.
"We're going to escalate our tactics based on the dictates of the crowd," Sweeney said. "We don't want to present a hard image right away because that level of force isn't necessary."
Sweeney said that many of the VPD's crowd-control officers receive special training in Britain and are selected for their ability to be patient and not overreact under pressure.
"We don't want to take actions that would predicate more violence," Sweeney said.
The VPD's point man for Olympic security issues is pleased that the worst-case draconian measures predicted by anti-Olympic activists never happened.
"There was a lot of manufactured hysteria," Sweeney said. "There was speculation that we would round people up in the Downtown Eastside, that there would be protest pens, that the Assistance to Shelter Act would be used to force the homeless into shelters -- and none of that has proven to be true."
Twelve people have been arrested and six people charged for disturbing the peace, assault, assault of a police officer and mischief.
Sweeney said that the police were determined to protect anti-Olympic protest, so long as it was lawful and didn't interfere with the right of others to enjoy the Games.
"There was a legitimate anti-Olympic movement, but there was also a component that was here for destructive purposes. And I think the tactics of that small group did harm to the legitimate protesters."
31 Comments so far
Show AllIt's a gimme that Black Bloc is primarily agents provocateurs. The police state needs violent protest, and thus provides it as part of its "service".
I suspect you're right. That, or the "Black Bloc" are just bratty kids with a love of self-important drama who badly need to grow up.
Real anarchists keep destruction and violence in reserve as the options of absolute last resort; we don't make them the preferred options. We're the most careful, peace-loving, pro-social people around.
What sad logic. Anybody who is willing to put their lives on the line to try to turn around our culture of exploitation and domination is an agent provocateur?
I would think it more likely that moderate organizations that insist that we keep using the same ineffective tactics that have got us where we are are more likely the establishment plants. If protest in the 60s was limited to what the state allowed Jim Crow would still be in effect and the Vietnam War never would have ended.
Supposed progressives that wish to enjoy the priviledges of domination while pretending to oppose it with half hearted measures are simply: Cowards. And the shoeshine boy and girls of the Police State.
The Nazis tried to blame the Resistance for the attrocities the Nazis committed. If one of theirs was killed, they killed 100 innocents. Do you support that logic? Making people who fight for freedom responsible for the oppression they fight? Then you are one of the oppressors. Nothing less.
Whatever the truth of the "Black Bloc", the article is imbued with such head-shaking, tight-lipped disapproval, and its portrayal of an Extreme Few ruining it for all of the wholesome, genteel, well-behaved activists is so clichéd that it comes off as stroke material for moderates.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Absolutely right. The wholesome, genteel, well-behaved activists are a useful prop to show the world that we are still a democracy and 'hey look ... we have freedoms ' !! Whatever ..
The wholesome, genteel, well-behaved activists often get arrested. One problem is, there are too few even of these.
Joe
Or too many.
There seems to be no sense of history or tactics in them.
If you're a small group, you don't do confrontation because you'll lose, and you don't do vandalism because many of the people you want on your side have been on the receiving end of vandalism either personally or by proxy and they didn't like it.
You do organising, which is 100% legal and 100% threatening to the owner class.
And if they make the mistake of having the cops beat you up, the cops' treatment of obviously peaceful, clean, law-abiding people doing Constitutionally-protected work brings a radicalising dividend: it creates dissonance and raises the consciousness of those outsiders who didn't believe cops would beat up peaceful, clean, law-abiding people.
violent protest doesnt seem like an effective idea at the moment. i do not object to violence on moral grounds at this point as much as i do because of tactical ones.
destruction of property will grab the headlines and any just give fodder for the talking heads to rip apart the whole protest while makingit easier to avoid discussion of any real issues.
violent actions by even a few in a group will allow the whole to be deemed "dangerous" and the next step is "terrorists." where all protestors will then face the power of the police and if need be eventually military.
but even if the black bloc wasnt doing it, the police would just infiltrate and do it themselves anyways, right?
what is your guys take? is the "black bloc" a group of real protestors, or are they agent provocateurs?
My guess is: mixture of really naive youngsters excited to be doing something rad, and agents provocateurs, excited to be doing something rad instead of dealing with domestic violence and car thieves.
That matches with my experience. But sometimes they are FBI and other groups, not just the local police.
Joe
How about the "moderate protesters" so beloved by the author?
Are THEY "real" or are they plants of some kind as well?
There are serious and crippling divisions in the remnants of the '90s "Anit-Globalization"/ Global Social justice and Democracy Movement.
This article is LEADING us to pick one side of one of these divisions out as the "bad guys" or the "troublemakers" for what is otherwise a united front of "good boys and girls" who "behave themselves".
Let's NOT fall for it, shall we?
1. There is no unity in what's left of the Movement outside of the "Black Bloc". The whole thing was smashed into a million pieces by the events of the Aughts. So, anybody trying to portray things in this false way is attempting to manipulate us. We don't want to be manipulated, do we?
2. The contempt the author has for the ENTIRETY of the protesters and their Movement comes through in several places despite his best efforts. Why trust ANYTHING -including framing and background- from someone who can't even hide their bias against the cause?
3. Snivelling to the Powers that Be and their Guardians in the Press about the "mean kids" who ruined the "good little boys and girls" playtime is just pathetic, especially in interviews with someone so contemptuous of one's self. Actual, unified and socially relevant, Movements are NOT lead by the type of person who is just itching to trash talk allies to the enemy. So, a) most of the interviewees should NOT be considered as representing the Movement, or b) this action has nothing to do with an actual Movement so events there are irrelevant to same. Either way, the framing of the interviewees can also be ignored.
4. REAL Movements police THEMSELVES. If the damned "Black Bloc-ers" are such a damned problem, and have been for decades, then why in the hell do the protest "leaders" and the "moderate majority" they supposedly represent friggin' DO SOMETHING ABOUT THEM ALREADY!? Does whining about it to one of the main Guardians of the supposed Enemy -the Corporatist Press- and expecting the "aid" of and complimenting one of the other main Guardians of the supposed Enemy -various Police Agencies- seem like a good solution to you?
5. Proof that the "Black Bloc-ers" confrontive and vandalistic tactics actually do have their time and place in actually found -though cryto-ized- in even this article! The public's reaction to the "Darth Vader" tactics of the police at an earlier event is held to be responsible for the police's new "kinder gentler" tactics for the olympics. This Sith-like response was the result of just the sort of thing that the author -and his trained monkeys in the shattered Movement- are attempting to paint as wholly unjustified and unhelpful. Ironic?
-matti.
Based upon too many historical examples those who advocate violence should be looked upon as agent provacateurs until proven otherwise.
that seems reasonable.
Really?
It seems incredibly paranoid and unnecessarily divisive to me.
Wouldn't it be better to just stop these people from doing any of this in conjuction with the main protest effort?
Rallies and marches (and more confrontative actions) can actually be organized so that everyone participating in them is on the same page.
It's just that the remnants of this '90s Movement don't have the inclination or ability to get this done.
Of course, I AM a agent provacateur (or AM I?), so don't trust me.
-matti.
Come on now, every "busted" so-called terrorist attempt has been instigated by a CIA mole, and that goes for the "bust" in Florida, New York, name it. That's the reason that advocates of violence have to be looked upon as agent provacaterus (or idiots) until proven otherwise. Sure not everyone who advocates violence will turn out to be an agent provacateur but until some reliable way of determining who is and who isn't on the take from one of the intelligence agencies, on what basis must protest organizers welcome violence seekers? Some democratic principle by which nobody can be excluded, even someone who's out to sabatoge the protest, or, that it would be paranoia to do otherwise? Except it's not paranoia because that's what intelligence organizations try to do, not just now & then, but always. And not only is it naive to do otherwise, it puts all protesters at risk (and without their having given prior consent), not to mention the fact that protest violence just doesn't work in North America. As for who is or isn't an agent provacateur, one can never be sure unless the suspected invdividual is claught red-handed naming people or giving out the protest plans to the gendarmes, so that if ever a measure of discipine is advisable, it's in dealing with violence seekers, cause very often that's the only lead.
Protesters who want to create an image of themselves as civil and well-behaved shouldn't try to curry favor in the mainstream (media) by shaking their fingers at "a few bad apples". Their tactics don't get rewarded; they get ignored and downplayed.
Let all protest in the way that they see fit. Anarchists doing what they consider appropriate doesn't diminish civil disobedience or anything else on the spectrum of 'activism'. I would offer, in the spirit of Derrick Jensen's lecture on the subject, that 'by any means necessary' should be the watchwords at this point. Until we discover what IS necessary, what DOES work-- don't condemn anyone else's actions. That is not for you to judge. Just ACT, in whatever way you can, and let each defend their action as and if they see fit.
We do not need to apologize for any of our actions. Certainly not for the actions of others. This might be one reason activists are so ignorable--because they squabble amongst themselves at the drop of a hat. Do not offer ideological divides in your movement, your resistance, to your opponent to be exploited--"divided and conquered". Your action is YOURS; if your action is effective, it will be emulated.
Activism is so circumscribed at this point that we have to make sure that if we act, we are committed to our action because we believe it is the most effective action we are capable of. What one is capable of will be different for different people. Do not denigrate other people's actions--do not be divided.
"Love does not imply pacifism"--Derrick Jensen
But love means that when you are in the midst of a group of peaceful protesters who in turn are surrounded by police, you do not take it upon yourself to throw a rock. If you do, you are either a provocateur or an idiot.
If you think throwing rocks and breaking windows is the way to go, find others who agree with you and organize your own damn demonstration.
Joe
But that can be turned around:
If you think that NOT throwing rocks and breaking windows is the way to go, actually organize your damned demonstration well enough to prevent people in it from doing that kind of thing.
Seeking unity by ousting troublemakers is one thing.
But seeking unity by whining to The Powers That Be about the troublemakers until THEY fix your boo-boo is another.
These people want to Change the World, but they require the help of the folks they wish to Dethrone in order to keep a couple thousand of their OWN people in line?
Good luck, kids.
-matti.
If you go out with a group of friends, go to a bar, your friends just want to have a couple drinks and relax, you get drunk, start shouting insults at everyone, and start a mass brawl. Don't whine when your friends start viewing you in a different light.
If you want to throw rocks, while with a group of people who do NOT want to throw rocks, and have made it explicitly clear to you about their intentions, then when you do throw a rock, don't whine and cry when the group of non throwers turn on you.
Unity is a two way street.
As for whining to the MSM / police because they are unable to restrain the rock throwers themselves, they actually need to, as a public relations exercise, given that the rock throwing has already happened.
Ideally all peaceful demonstrations would have trained security who know how to PREVENT violent incidents. But alas we are not always strong enough to do so. Meanwhile, we should warn passionate but inexperienced people about the role of provocateurs. Police provocateurs are most effective when they can get people to follow them. Otherwise they just look nutty.
I do not know of anyone who advocates "whining" to the powers-that-be about the provocateurs that the powers-that-be themselves send to bust up demonstrations. That would be very pathetic. But if we can show the role of provocateurs on film, for example, and use it in the defense of arrested or beaten demonstrators, that is useful.
Joe
"If there was any damage to the status quo by Saturday's tactics, it was fleeting," Eby said.
"What was not fleeting was the damage caused by those tactics to public support for the wider Olympic accountability effort and criticism of overspending on police"
It's easy to think of BlacBloc as being agents, but it's more likely that they are just a bunch of hotheaded poseurs that think it's so cool and romantic to "challenge the Elites at the barricades", images of Che and Paris '68, gleaned from movies, glowing in their heads, with no real thought and no understanding of consequences.
The end result is the same, whether they are intent on damaging the Left or doing it thoughtlessly, the General Public IDs ALL protestors as black-clad thugs setting cars on fire and smashing windows. Of course, that image is then used extensively by the Corporate Media to demonize whatever movement they are demonizing today, Anti-Globalization, Climate Change, Anti-War, anti-Olympics...
And once again, do you really think that targeting an international sporting event, one that has been a tiny sign of peace and international cooperation, even in the midst of the Cold War and during hot wars as well, one that has a huge level of popularity, world wide, Is disrupting that a good idea? How does it help anyone's cause?
From most people's perspective, particularly since they will probably never hear what the protestors are on about, all they'll know is "some violent Lefties tried to wreck the games". That doesn't win many friends and the people it does attract....watch them carefully.
Living in Vancouver and having attended the actions "described" above, there is a lot I could say about this article, from the corporate Vancouver Sun, which purports to offer a sober assessment of how and why Vancouver's anti-olympic movement has supposedly become marginalized and irrelevant to locals who just want to have a good time and celebrate the games.
The article is almost laughable in its bias towards the police, who are quoted at length. The writer then cherry picks selective statements from anti-olympic activists appearing to support police claims that they were "restrained" in dealing with provocations from a few violent protesters (in a quote from a supporter of "diversity of tactics", Ward again copies and pastes a few sentences out of a much larger argument, taking them out of context thus making the argument appear weak and unsupportable).
Missing from Ward's article is the fact that during the "Heart Attack" demo, after the riot squad arrived, both Vancouver police and RCMP were observed (and photographed) sporting automatic weapons of the type commonly carried by soldiers in war zones. Also not mentioned are allegations that police used excessive force in detaining and arresting protesters, including at least one beating in custody (or the fact that those attending "Heart Attack", including members of the legal team, were followed and harassed by police after the demo, including one indigenous activist who was issued a $75.00 ticket for "spitting" on the sidewalk).
Ward also makes light of a central demand of the anti-olympic movement: no Olympics on unceded (stolen) land. Originally raised by indigenous organizers themselves, Ward sarcastically dismisses about a century and a half of colonialism with a glib comment about Canadian athletes "going for gold" on stolen native land (the latter phrase he puts in quotes as if to underscore the notion that such demands should not be taken seriously).
Incidently, the claim that a few protesters "assaulted" random passers-by is being reported as fact in Vancouver's local media, including the above article. Ward infers this has been at least tolerated by some anti-olympic organizers. In fact, the one statement I've heard from an ORN organizer said that if such assaults had, in fact, occured, it was "unfortunate". From my own position, I saw some heated exchanges between a few masked protesters and passers-by who did not see things the same way, but nothing (of what I saw at any rate) could be characterized as "assault" (except that which was done by the cops).
There are some good debates occurring right now in the anti-olympic movement, including by some of the people quoted above, although you wouldn't know it by reading this fawning puff piece about "restrained" police managing a small, violent "fringe" group of "anarchists" (within another slightly larger, though still minuscule, "fringe" group of out-of-touch activists) so everybody else can just have fun watching the world's greatest hockey players, attending free concerts and meeting interesting people from around the world.
Then again, if the Vancouver Sun, Olympics sponsor and part of one of Canada's largest media conglomerates, had anything positive to say about the anti-olympic movement, I'd think we were doing something wrong!
This is reminiscent of the San Francisco Chronicle tearing into 'anarchic' protesters back in 2003 who supposedly got a little 'rowdy' and spoiled it for the rest of the 'peaceful' protesters, thereby negating the 'effort' put in by the 'peaceful' grandmas. All this for protesting our mad rush into war and the genocide that followed in Iraq. Same story, different town.
"Both Eby and Shaw were heckled at the debate for not adhering to an informal agreement to respect "diversity of tactics," which is code for not criticizing fellow protesters who damage property or assault the police or bystanders."
This "informal agreement" is a horrendous idea. Bad tactics, as well as bad ideas, need to be criticized. It is certainly in our right to judge actions that are ineffective, so that hopefully they will be less likely to be used. The process of criticism is how one determines what actions are necessary at any given point. It does not just happen magically. Accepting any tactic, or any ideology, for fear of being "divided and conquered" is a recipe for putting forth muddled, ineffectual politics that cannot change anything. All it can do is make you feel good because, "Hey, I did something," which if your goal is to change society does not count for much.
I also believe the black bloc types are perfectly legitimate, and not agents provocateurs. However, that they could so easily be confused as such, due to how often they effectively sabotage events, shows how ineffectual these tactics are, and the type of delusional, vapid ideology that sees this as an effective response to our current situation.
Beware of "Consensus Decision Making Processes" I say.
All that they result in is :
A) An informal oligarchy, effective only haphazardly and in the short term.
B) Totally ineffective chaos.
C) Subversion by organized outside forces.
Just sayin'.
-matti.
I didn't see the demonstrators as acting legitimately. But even more importantly, I didn't know what they were demonstrating about.
Isn't the message the most important part? It got lost in the violence.
And why the Olympics, ITO native land? We're on stolen native land all the time! Why, at this moment?
I like the Olympics. When I think about the Olympics, I think about the athletes -- Jesse Owens or Usain Bolt or any number of runners, swimmers, ice skaters from many countries.
I don't know the rioters were "agent provocateurs" or just very angry younger people who haven't found a way to really articulate what's bothering them. But I don't agree with what they were doing, and it doesn't represent what I think.
Hudson Bay Company known to have slaughtered Inuit dog sled teams as their owners shopped in the Company Store.
So as to make the Inuits stationary and dependent on the Hudson Bay Store.
We live in Nations that are throwing VERY LARGE BOMBS in our name killing many PEOPLE.
Breaking a predatory Corporations window is insignificant in comparison to Daily State Terror abroad.
I do not consider damage to or sabotage to property be an illigetimate tactic in oppossing an immense State Apparatus of Deadly Force.
That said one must always look at whether one is obtaining the desired results.
It is typical in political struggle to have an ally who is more extreme and therefor makes your demands more acceptable.
The USA got the New Deal because there were 10 million card carrying Communists in the USA.These Reds were using confiscated White Russian gold to feed the starving USA masses. And the USA had just experienced a large number of bombings and bloodshed involving anarchists, unionists, pacifists and the forces of repression.
True, Glenn, but the more extreme group need not act out --and is very likely more effective if it doesn't, on the grounds that it's better to let people's imaginations run riot instead.
Malcolm didn't need to get anyone breaking windows or throwing firebombs...his very existence made Martin seem benign.
It is unrealistic to think these BlackBloc folks are disgruntled kids. The infiltration of peace groups throughout the US alone proves that the police fascist system is trying to break the will and process of true and right protest. They know we are more powerful than they are and fear us. So they create the ruse of violence, their method for everything, and they, of course, never expose themselves to scrutiny, and what happens IF they get arrested? Anyone following that? The fascists have no problem arresting peaceful protestors..
so if these are really anarchists who truly believe they are doing the right thing by destroying another's property regardless the meaning of it, then they should show their faces and voices instead of hiding.
wow. common dreams--i dont usually look at your site or read your stuff, but seeing you post and promote the article above is so sickening! what the fuck? shame on you common dreams! vancouver sun? really? did you see the way the author treated members of our movement? are your common dreams really our common dreams? or are you simply legitimizing the constraints of discussion by the state and the corporate press? shame on you.
i urge you all to look at Harsha Walia own words in regards to the day in question instead of allowing yourselves to be duped by common dreams, the vancouver sun, the state, and the bullshit corporate sponsors. Also, no one was assaulted on the day in question--police used violence against protesters.
Watch Harsha's comments from the A Diversity of Tactics - A Diversity of Opinions Panel discussion: http://vimeo.com/9705341
shame on you common dreams.
from an independent media center journalist who was there that day-