tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3474771765780694062.post8649544256573264529..comments2024-03-23T13:50:19.638-04:00Comments on LEAP Blog: Increasing state intervention and the future of dissidenceLEAPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13834755686609435335noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3474771765780694062.post-85516835199796753292010-09-08T15:06:56.773-04:002010-09-08T15:06:56.773-04:00I am not sure I agree with the basic thrust of the...I am not sure I agree with the basic thrust of the post, primarily because, I sense, that this is one of those situations in which previous events tend to fade out of focus and seem less significant. It is therefore often, if not always true, that the most recent event seems to be the 'strongest display', given that it is most strongly in the public consciousness.<br /><br />Specifically for example, while reading I considered a number of different protest incidents in the past, generally regarding aboriginal land claims. While the most recent incidents have been relatively peaceful, prior incidents were not so. Ontario provincial police shot Dudley George in 1995 during a land claim's protest, and in that same year, the RCMP deployed nine APCs, five helicopters, two fixed-wing aircraft, and four hundred paramilitary officers to Gustafsen lake, who fired 77,000 rounds of ammunition and blew up a car with a landmine in order to deal with a protest by a few dozen individuals.<br /><br />Moreover, in specifically the case of the G-20, it's worth noting that the primary concern over the response of the Toronto police and the Ontario government (under the <em>Public Works Protection Act</em>) seems to have been the result of actions of the provincial government, not the federal government.<br /><br />Ultimately, there was very limited, if any, involvement by the federal government in the actual implementation of security measures surrounding the G-20.<br /><br />Having just skimmed over anonymous's comment, I think that while our comments dovetail, where they separate is that I don't think this is an issue of race. The police response to protest is not so much a matter of race (although, race often determines who protests in the first place) but is more a matter of the political and tactical environment in which they operate. Where protestors are politically unpopular and located in a tactical environment that minimizes the likelihood of collateral damage (such as at Gustafsen Lake), they are far more likely to engage with significant force.<br /><br />There have been a number of political protests in Toronto that have not resulted in significant harm to the protestors; Tamil protests come to mind. But G-20 protestors are politically unpopular, and moreover, were in a tactical environment with very limited potential for collateral damage. That allowed the police to use disproportionately significant force, but the situation surrounding that use of force was not unexpected.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3474771765780694062.post-27114858620895172692010-08-26T16:39:46.271-04:002010-08-26T16:39:46.271-04:00As the author, I would agree with this comment. Th...As the author, I would agree with this comment. The poor, the First Nations people and many disadvantaged groups face state sponsored repression. Hopefully, the co-operation of the many groups at the G20, who were protesting exactly the kind of violence that this commentator raises, will create linkages that address issues of police violence.Elayne Francisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3474771765780694062.post-8848635357653750712010-08-24T18:36:47.475-04:002010-08-24T18:36:47.475-04:00I find it telling that the author describes the po...I find it telling that the author describes the police response to protesters at the G20 as being "the strongest display of state intervention against protest that Canada has ever seen." <br /><br />While there can be no doubt that the spectacle of police violence at the G20 did indeed criminalize dissent, and was extremely violent, calling it the strongest display of state intervention against protest that Canada has ever seen very simply ignores the historic and current reality of First Nations people, racialized people, and poor people in this country.<br /><br />For example, First Nations communities have been experiencing police violence for expressing dissent for centuries. Pepper spray, real bullets and over zealous police have been a constant throughout the history of the colonization of First Nations land here in Canada. <br /><br />While it is crucial that we continue to speak out against state violence, it is equally crucial that we connect this struggle to already existing struggles. <br /><br />In particular, the struggles of activists who spent one night in jail must be connected to allready existing prison justice struggles. We need to highlight not only the plight of those activists who were detained during protest, but also the plight of prisoners who are detained everyday and the conditions that they are subjected to.<br /><br />First Nations people, poor and otherwise marginalized people and racialized communities in general in Canada have always, and continue to be subjected to over-policing, heightened securitization, over-zealous policing, and police tactics that are intended to curb dissent. There is nothing novel about police violence - the only novelty was the demographic on the receiving end of the violence at the G20.<br /><br />Outcries about the injustices perpetuated by the police and the state at the G20 (and there are many) must connect to already existing struggles faced by so many in Canada who are subjected to living in a police state on a daily basis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com