CommonPrejudice

Agent Provocateurs Again

(Updated below)

Those who are not, and usually never have been, involved in a street protest, typically form their opinions of the protesters and their causes by watching the news on TV. The  protesters, meanwhile, have sworn for years - from the Genoa to Quebec City to Miami and everywhere in between - that agent provocateurs have infiltrated their ranks in order to give an excuse for the police to implement their heavy handed techniques.  Unfortunately all the average person sees by watching the evening news is the mainstream media's portrayal of the violence as being orchestrated by countless trouble makers within the actual protest movement.

And those who decide to make their voice heard protesting various injustices get labeled as wacked-out extremists determined to cause violence. Usually, though, this is not the case.

Take this account of the protest in Genoa in 2001:

...the police routinely plant infiltrators and agent provocateurs in the crowd. Four men masked-up and dressed all in black, as if they were Black Bloc members, were filmed getting out of the back of a police van and smashing up a bank. A prominent Italian Socialist MP told of how he observed a large number of similarly dressed men armed with various different weapons in a police station the morning of Friday 20th. I heard from another Irish protestor how, wearing a black t-shirt, he had felt something on his back at the GR protest early on Friday morning. He turned around, and there was no-one there. Later that day, when changing his clothes, he noticed that a large white X had been chalked on his back. A number of other black-clad protestors had been marked or covertly sprayed with red and yellow paint, being marked out for police snatch squads, presumably assumed to be members of the Black Bloc.

But, as the same writer continues it is often the authorities in charge of security who initiate the violence.

...As we sat around the campsite fire drinking wine and discussing the days events, spirits were high following what has since been hailed as the largest peaceful protest of our generation (the like of which has not been seen since the Sixties). The mood quickly turned as we were told of events at the Indy Media Centre that night by a clearly frightened and out of breath witness. A large squad of Carabinieri [military police of Italy] had stormed the IMC and the school beside it, also part of the IMC, and after locking the doors, had proceeded to violently beat all inside before arresting them on trumped up charges of resisting arrest and possession of weapons. They had claimed it was the headquarters of the Black Bloc; the real reason for this flagrant abuse of human rights was that much video and photographic evidence against the illegal actions of the police were contained within. They confiscated video cameras and tapes, computer hard-drives and photo films. I downloaded a video from the internet, filmed by one of the 6 who had escaped out a window at the back of the building, which showed a woman holding her hands above her head pleading "Non violencia, non violencia" repeatedly as a Carabinieri approached her. He drew back and smashed her in the face with his baton, and proceeded to kick and beat her as she fell to the ground. Another joined in, and continued to beat her until she stopped screaming. As the police left, photographs were taken of the blood-drenched walls and floor. 90 people from the IMC were arrested and badly beaten while in police custody. In a report written by an Italian police officer, we are told of the way in which those arrested were treated: "They lined them up and banged their heads against the walls. They urinated on one person. They beat people if they didn't sing Facetta Nera [A Fascist hymn]. One girl was vomiting blood but the chief of the squad just looked on. They threatened to rape girls with their batons." These actions were sanctioned by the State, and still have not been officially condemned, thus abolishing the thin veil of democracy under which we supposedly live. And still little concerning these atrocities has been reported in the mainstream media.

So what does the average person forming his opinion based on media accounts believe?

Those who write the news would have you believe that the protests were little more than an unruly gang of youths and hooligans smashing up shop-fronts with completely apolitical motivations. Although discouraging, it is hardly surprising that the media focused on 2000 rioters rather than over a quarter of a million non-violent protesters marching peacefully against the global ravages of capitalism on Saturday 21st July.

I have been to a couple of protests like these, in Argentina, and in Cancun, and I can assure you that those who are agent provocateurs are well-known and easily identified - though try convincing the average couch potato that they even exist. Further, I can assure anyone that the vast majority are not there to undertake any violent action whatsoever.

Well now more evidence has surfaced - much to my embarrassment in my own country - that sleazy behavior by police continues.

Protesters are accusing police of using undercover agents to provoke violent confrontations at the North American leaders' summit in Montebello, Que...

A video, posted on YouTube, shows three young men, their faces masked by bandannas, mingling Monday with protesters in front of a line of police in riot gear. At least one of the masked men is holding a rock in his hand.

The three are confronted by protest organizer Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. Coles makes it clear the masked men are not welcome among his group of protesters, whom he describes as mainly grandparents. He urges them to leave and find their own protest location.

Coles also demands that they put down their rocks. Other protesters begin to chime in that the three are really police agents. Several try to snatch the bandanas from their faces.

Rather than leave, the three actually start edging closer to the police line, where they appear to engage in discussions. They eventually push their way past an officer, whereupon other police shove them to the ground and handcuff them.

Late Tuesday, photographs taken by another protester surfaced, showing the trio lying prone on the ground. The photos show the soles of their boots adorned by yellow triangles. A police officer kneeling beside the men has an identical yellow triangle on the sole of his boot...

...The three do not appear to have been arrested or charged with any offence.

With the advent of YouTube hopefully the criminal actions of the authorities will become much more publicized and understood. Here is the video of the despicable scene from Quebec.

How pathetic is that?

Update: The Quebec provincial police now admit it:

Quebec provincial police are defending the actions of its three agents who posed as protesters during this week's North American Leaders' summit in Montebello, Que.

Insp. Marcel Savard defended the three agents today at a news conference in Montreal and insisted they were not there to provoke demonstrators.

He also says one of the officers was given a rock by protesters but the officer had no intention of using it.

After originally denying it, the force has admitted the trio were involved in the protest after a video clip of the them showed up on the popular website, Youtube.com...

But don't worry, the Quebec provincial government will not let this type of conduct slide.

A spokeswoman for Quebec Public Security Minister Jacques Dupuis says the minister won't comment on the actions of the officers because he doesn't get involved in police operations.

Well, local governments sure don't seem to have a problem getting involved in "protest operations." But no need to worry. The Canadian federal government will certainly look into this.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day has already rejected opposition calls for an inquiry.

Ok, not so much. Well, then, maybe now the media will vastly change its portrayal of protesters, focusing instead on the unethical and sleazy behavior of those who are supposed to be on the side of law and justice but instead do anything to tarnish the opposition to the status quo image while protecting the most powerful interests in society.

But then again, I'm not holding my breath.

In principle, I have nothing against police surveillance work. Those sorts of operations can be perfectly viable, especially at events where a small group of rabid, anarchist protesters have been known to incite full-fledged riot scenes. But there is fine line between reconnaissance operations and inciting protesters so that you can make the big arrest. The story at Montebello clearly appears to be a case of the latter, and, worse still, the pitiful work of amateurish incompetants.

The author of this editorial rightfully portrays this protest as one of older folks determined to keep the peace. But notice that by the end of the article he brings up once again the "rabid, anarchist protesters." Sure they exist, but does he really think that this is the first time police have sent in undercover cops with the express reason to stir it up and give security forces a chance to bust some heads? There will be some small repercussions but in the end it will always be the protesters who are blamed for any violence. You can count on it.

Paying three agents to go undercover. Price: a few hundred bucks.

Defending this as a legitimate operation: Priceless

Beyond Differences in Government

Yesterday Glen Greenwald posted on the different reactions the United States and the Canadian governments have taken in regards to the horrible case of Maher Arar. Arar is the Canadian citizen who was wrongly accused of being a terrorist based on information supplied by the RCMP, but, unbeknownst to the Canadian authorities, was to be rendered to Syria by the U.S. government and tortured by the Syrians.

As Greenwald highlights, the Canadian government has compensated Arar for his horrible ordeal:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized Friday to Maher Arar for Canada's role in his "terrible ordeal" and announced he will receive $10.5 million in a legal settlement with the government, the largest compensation package for an individual in Canadian history.

"We cannot go back and fix the injustice that occurred to Mr. Arar. However, we can make changes to lessen the likelihood that something like this will ever happen again," said Harper.

A commentator on Glenwald's post entitled "A tale of two governments" accurately noted the following about Harper and his government.

[***Note: Haloscan is apparently down, so temporarily I am unable to access the comment. Basically it noted how Harper and his party are very Conservative, would have supported Bush's invasion of Iraq had they been in power and here and simply acting opportunistically. I will add in the comment later, when Haloscan is back up***]

Later Greenwald updated his post, noting (from Crooks and Liars):

...the Canadian report specifically recommended that the Canadian Government "review their policies governing the circumstances in which they supply information to foreign governments with questionable human rights records," and specifically urged that "information should never be provided to a foreign country where there is a credible risk that it will cause or contribute to the use of torture."

One of the most infuriating aspects of the Bush presidency and all of the complicity that has enabled it is that a rational person with pride in the history and values of the U.S. no longer has any basis for objecting to characterizations like this of our country. Those descriptions aren't the by-product of some sort of reflexive anti-American sentiment or overwrought internationalist righteousness. They are just undeniably and objectively true characterizations of what our government has done. And it is infuriating to have to accept that.

I would just like to add the following observation. I believe that perhaps Greenwald is obscuring the issue to some degree by titling the post, "a Tale of Two Governments."  In essence the roots are much deeper than simply one government behaving much worse than another. While there certainly are significant numbers of wingnuts in both societies, the problem clearly goes much deeper in the United States. George Bush  was not only elected (somewhat) as president, he was reelected. You can blame this all you want on the media (certainly warranted, but does not take away from my point, since a competent media is a vital part of a functioning democracy) and the inadequacy of the Kerry campaign. Nevertheless, at the time he was reelected, Bush had already led the country into what was clearly a disastrous war, had instituted policies of torture, illegal imprisonment and illegal rendition many times over, had utterly failed to respond to Katrina, and had overseen or been responsible for numerable government scandals and lies.  Granted his approval rating is in Nixon territory now, but I find it very difficult to believe that if the impossible were occurring, that is, the war in Iraq was going well, and the economy was doing better, his rating wouldn't be much higher. Further the Democratic victory had as much to do with the lawlessness and atrocious behaviour  of the likes of Mark Foley and Tom Delay than Bush himself. Moreover, I very much doubt significant numbers of votes went to Democrats that otherwise would have gone to Republicans solely due to issues relating to torture and human rights. Again I point to the 2004 election.

Meanwhile in Canada, Bush sycophant Harper, someone who went on Fox television after the invasion of Iraq to apologize for Canada not supporting the war, is, as the commentator above noted, most likely playing the role of the political opportunist in the Arar case. This is because he is well much aware that the idea of Canada supporting regimes which advocate torture, or much worse, actually contribute to the torture of an innocent (even more so, a Canadian - contrast this with the Padilla case in the United States) not only would be unpopular but absolutely devastating to a government that hopes to consolidate its power and turn a minority into a majority. It's an astute political move, but we must ask why it is such in Canada, while in the U.S. the issue barely consitutes a blip on the press's radar screen.

The point here certainly is not to proudly proclaim Canada's superiority. Being against  the torture of anyone, never mind an innocent fellow citizen, is something that absolutely should be taken for granted in any just and democratic society. That it is not in the United States is clearly the problem here.

Of course, on the face Canada referring to the United States as a foreign government with "questionable human rights record" must really be a slap in the face to the true democrats (small d here) in the United States, as accurate as it clearly is. Nevertheless the temptation to place the blame squarely on the Bush folks is not sufficient. There are societal and cultural issues that need to be confronted. We must remember that the United States is an immensely powerful country. It is indeed a dangerous time when such a powerful country does not possess such fundamental concepts of democracy and justice to the degree that torturing and rendering innocent people does not spell the government's doom.

There's a New Lapdog in Town

For far too long now the United States has been hogging all of the claims to feeling humiliated by its federal government. It's long overdue that Canada steps up. Here's an update from Jerry West at Rabble:

On Kyoto:

At the recent climate change conference in Nairobi, world leaders were highly critical of Canada's back pedaling on its Kyoto commitments and were not favourably impressed with the performance of Environment Minister Rona Ambrose.

On trade disputes:

Soon after taking office, the new government changed tactics in the softwood dispute and caved in to U.S. pressure to settle on terms favourable to the Americans. This, after Canada has won almost every case on the issue brought before the courts. One has to wonder which country Stephen Harper and his cabinet ministers are working for.

On fisheries (see also here)

Recently, Canada has refused to join other nations, including the United Kingdom, in banning the practice of bottom trawling or dragging. This fishing method strips the sea bottom of most life, resulting in tonnes of unwanted by-catch that is wasted. It has been characterized as rape of the sea and it is an embarrassment that we do not join with other responsible nations in putting an end to it.

Canada, especially in regards to environmental policy, needs to set an example, not be a lapdog of corporate flat-earthers.

Then, of course, there is the whole "nation within nation" non sequitur from the Reform Conservative government.  Makes you kind of wonder if there is a leader within the leader:

Do Quebecers form a nation within a united Canada? The answer is yes. Do the Quebecois form an independent nation? The answer is no, and will always be no," Harper said.

What can that possibly mean? Is it possible to form a nation that is not independent? I suppose we could refer to specific culture and language (certainly in the case of the first nations this applies) but within the explosive context of the issue of Quebec sovereignty this is simply a twisting of the language for political gain that is enormously irresponsible and short-sighted along with blatant pandering to the Quebec electorate.

Excuse Me ... "nudged!?!"

What the hell is wrong with my country?

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said Thursday that he has nudged the Americans to remove Maher Arar's name from their no-fly list after a public inquiry unequivocally cleared him as a terror suspect.

Day's appeal to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security - which he hinted was a gentle suggestion rather than a demand - comes after the Canadian government removed Arar and his family from a border watch list that is used to keep tabs on terrorism suspects...

Yeah, we don't want to hurt their feelings or anything. Sure, Day is a nut, but c'mon! If we go down this road ... good christ...what a goddamn embarrassment.

Our Bad?

A little more on the Arar case. Some in Canada want to place the blame more on our government and the RCMP. Here is an example.

In the mistreatment of Canadian Maher Arar, it’s easy to point fingers at the Syrian government, who allowed him to be brutally beaten and tortured; or the US Administration, whose counter-terrorism policies led to Arar’s extradition to Syria; unfortunately, however, the bulk of the blame falls squarely on Canada.

The only way it is acceptable to declare that Canada and the RCMP are the ones who deserve the majority of the responsibility for Arar's nightmare is to accept that the United States is a rogue state with whom countries must be very careful because they torture (or sent to be tortured - same thing) their prisoners or simply those suspected of wrongdoing.

Something in the vein of, any misinformation or bad information we give them will probably lead to someone being tortured so we should know better and thus it's essentially our fault.

It appears that the information given the Americans was wrong, very much so, and ultimately dangerously so. But if the information had been correct, and there had been evidence pointing to Arar's involvement in terrorism, does that mean it would have been fine to torture him? Is the United States now officially a country which the rest of the world can assume will willfully violate the Geneva convention and internationals standards of basic human rights?

Now I think of it, this is the case, isn't it. The U.S. is a country which does support torture - in fact the Bush crime family is currently trying to pass a law to actually make it legal -  so I suppose we are as much to blame as if we had sent Arar directly to Syria ourselves. Do you think we should try and get an multinational force together and invade them?

Lying Liars

Apparently Maher Arar was simply deported - to a country he hadn't been to in 17 years, not the one he was living in and had been a citizen since 1991.

And Washington received assurances - like they always do - that nothing bad at all would happen to him upon his return.

And the war in Iraq is going smoothly. And global warming is just some fear mongering by Al Gore.

Facing renewed criticism over its treatment of Maher Arar, the Bush administration on Tuesday denied U.S. intelligence officials deliberately sent the former Ottawa man to Syria for interrogation as a possible terrorist.

Speaking to reporters in Washington, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the U.S. government would never knowingly ship a suspect terrorist to another country if it believed that person would be tortured...

But ''even if (Arar's case) were rendition, we understand as a government what our obligations are with respect to anyone who's rendered by the government to another country,'' Gonzales said. ''That is, we seek to satisfy ourselves that they will not be tortured. We do that in every case. If, in fact, he had been rendered to Syria, we would have sought those same kind of assurances, as we do in every case.''

I mean how could the U.S. possibly suspect Syria would torture Arar.

Syrian torture of prisoners was no secret. The U.S. State Department had reported that Syria's prisoners sometimes had their fingernails pulled out, objects forced into their rectum, or their bodies forced into a wheel's frame so exposed body parts could be whipped...

They just lie and lie and lie and lie and lie.

Some Hard Hitting Journalism

So Rice visits Canada and Canadian foreign minister Peter MacKay. It's good to see that reporters from my country know how to do their job. Take at look at this lede:

At Tim Hortons, Peter MacKay and Condoleezza Rice playfully argued over who should pick up the tab for his tea and her half-regular-half-decaf coffee, black with Splenda.

They wrestled verbally, to and fro, until the clerk behind the counter insisted it was on the house...

Wow. They really nailed her to the wall. It's not like under her watch the U.S. has lied its way into war, and she keeps on lying about it years later...oh wait it is. Via Kos.

Coming to a TV screen near you, Condoleezza Rice, reprising her role as Baghdad Bob:

Rice, giving a series of interviews ahead of the fifth anniversary of the September 11 Al-Qaeda attacks on the United States, brushed aside a recently released US intelligence report (PDF) saying there was no evidence Saddam's regime was helping Al-Qaeda obtain such arms.

"There were ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda," she said on Fox News Sunday.

Seems to me a responsible journalist might query her about that. Click the Kos link to see how absolute ridiculous her statement was.

Just Guidelines

Of course this is impossible to confirm but it does make sense:

Key said he was never trained on the Geneva Conventions and was told in Iraq that the international law guiding humanitarian standards were "just guidelines."
-(Joshua Key, "the first U.S. deserter with combat experience in Iraq to apply for refugee status in Canada")

You see they're guidelines, not rules. Something like, try to avoid torturing someone if you can but if you're really in a bind you can do stuff like this.

(hardly the worst of the photos, btw)

All We Want is Some Sincerity

How ridiculous can you get?
Gordon Giffin, ex-U.S. ambassador to Canada attempts to set the pace:

A former U.S. ambassador to Canada believes recent comments made by President George Bush about how the two countries have a unique and strong relationship may signal the beginning of a new era of cross-border cooperation.

"I was struck by how sincere I thought the president was in reducing anxieties in the relationship," former ambassador Gordon Giffin told Canada AM.

"And also I thought it was quite telling, in a way profound, that he pointed out that the relationship between Canada and the United States is much greater than the dialogue between governments. It's really a people-to-people relationship."

Wow, that is profound.

I'm sure if Bush just gets real enough us stupid Canadian folk will overlook everything else. Or not:

A recent poll conducted by The Strategic Counsel for CTV and The Globe and Mail found 46 per cent of Canadians believe the two countries are friends, but not close, 30 per cent believe the relationship is cordial but distant, and 11 per cent believe the two countries are best friends.

The poll also found that only seven per cent of those questioned felt their attitude towards the U.S. has grown more positive in recent years, and 69 per cent felt that Bush's election is a bad thing.

It isn't just Latin America. George W. Bush is a global unifier, god bless him.

Election Day

Crossing our fingers, hoping for a minority.
I'll do a little live election blogging tonight as the results roll in.

Update:
Obviously I didn't blog during election night (no loss I'm sure), as for some reason I couldn't access CBC's internet coverage, even past 10:00pm eastern. (eventually I went to CTV's coverage, but the election had long since been decided). The denial of a Conservative majority was the best to hope for I believe, so the result wasn't bad. How all parties respond to their situation will determine which way the country goes in the next election in the not so-far distant future. That is to say, I imagine the country will go one way and give someone a majority. I'd say the best bet for the Liberals and NDP for the time being is to lie low (yet strongly maintain some simple 'line in the sand' positions such as no troops to Iraq under the current arrangement and maintaining and improving the public health system) and let the Conservatives stick their collective foot in their mouth. You know they will.