Free To Protest

Canadians are assured, living in a free and Democratic society, that they may protest, gather lawfully in the streets if need be, to utter their dissatisfaction and distrust of government policies should they so desire. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to march in protest or stand silently with signage leaving no mystery about what the matter at hand is concerned with, guaranteed to Canadians by law.

When protest groups comprised of union members, of ordinary Canadians who simply dislike the secrecy surrounding high-level talks between the heads of government representing Canada, Mexico and the United States organized for the purpose of revealing publicly their disgruntlement at the perceived direction our government is leading this country toward, they had every right, enshrined in law, to do so.

When the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the United States met for a summit discussion to argue matters of importance and great interest to all the citizens of Canada, they had no intention of publicly airing the topics under discussion, the direction of the talks, and the consensus or lack of, reached by the leaders. This is not open and transparent government.

It is one thing to declare for public consumption that the matters being discussed - ranging from travel restrictions to new identification papers required to ensure transit across borders, to harmonization of the ingredients lists in consumer products - merely constitute streamlining of government policies to ensure smoother flow of trade. We can swallow that, to a degree.

It's the other, allied albeit hidden agenda where harmonization may result in the downgrading of our own carefully, scientifically declared, potentially hazardous ingredients in the products we consume, that has us worried. It's the possibility of losing even greater control over what we produce, along with the assurance of producing them ourselves, not losing jobs as an offshoot of harmonization that has us concerned.

It's the possibility that already-vulnerable fresh-water systems that Canadians rely upon, may become compromised in ways that seemed inconceivable years ago, being piped or shipped elsewhere, leaving Canadians with a water deficit. It's the ongoing push by American corporations aided and abetted by their Canadian counterparts to completely obliterate borders to enhance production and sales that give us the creeps.

It's the ever-growing push-and-shove, along with industry-related investments in accordance with the perceived needs of a neighbour whose government recognizes our country as a nearby and reliable source of energy that imperils our own energy-source stability, let alone our ability to better govern our extraction procedures, leaving us with an increased environmental mess at a time when we should be working toward clean-up.

So these, and other matters concerning to Canadians from all walks of life ensured that a representative portion of those concerned would show up at Montebello, Quebec to voice their concerns and grievances. The behaviour of the Surete du Quebec facing off with protesters during this event belies the Democratic enablement of Canadians to peaceful protest.

When Quebec provincial police decided they would infiltrate the peaceful protesters with members of their police force dressed in a manner that, they thought, would shield them from identification as police officers and enable them to melt into the crowd for the purpose of provocation they demonstrated a severe lack of judgement.

In fact, when peaceful demonstrators comprised of families with children, of elderly participants, of idealistic young people were quietly gathered in designated areas around Chateau Montebello, they were harassed and exposed to insulting and potentially physically harmful shoving and jostling by riot-geared police.

Whose purpose appeared to be to unleash a backlash from the assembled protesters which could then be construed as violent action necessitating that the police clear them away from their pre-approved position near the conference, through the use of direct police action, including the use of pepper spray and truncheons.

That when three members of the Quebec police geared in black, with bandanna-covered faces infiltrated a gathering of union protesters in an ugly demonstration of pretense of belonging to anarchists intent on brewing trouble, rocks in hand, they were confronted by a union leader and ordered to decamp. They were, in fact, recognized by union protesters as nothing less than agents provocateur.

"People have the right to peacefully protest something they don't like", said a labour official. In fact the very same man, Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada who was shoved and sworn at by one of the three undercover police agents, when he confronted them and demanded they set down their rocks, remove their face coverings and identify themselves.

They fled into the ranks of provincial police officers in riot gear and were seen to be arrested. All a shameful show in a shameful attempt to hide their identities. "They think that they have the right to infiltrate us as they've done before. But to be packing large boulders, they were going to do something with those rocks and it wasn't peaceful", according to Dave Coles.

Yet, according to a spokesperson for the Quebec police force who, after several days of derisory scorn from onlookers who had no problems identifying from video footage footgear worn by the three infiltrators as being identical to those worn by the Surete du Quebec, there was no intention on the part of the police force to instigate a violent confrontation.

No explanation, however, why the three were there, were wearing disguises, were obviously attempting to foist a riot upon peaceful protesters.

For shame.