2008-11-28 Follow-up on Montebello, Police provoke Violence at SPP protest (2007)
For Montebello (high-end resort outside Ottawa) Canadian police were trained, disguised and deployed
for the assigned purpose of turning a peaceful protest violent.
RELATED: Battle in Seattle, the movie“
The SPP is the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership.
The focus of public attention on the SPP caused it to later change its name.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
(1) WATCH THE SHORT MONTEBELLO VIDEO
Astute, peaceful protestors had been able to reach in and pull down the face masks of the provocateurs after someone noticed that they were wearing police boots and shouted it out. The video includes footage from a subsequent press conference held by Police. They had been caught on camera and were forced to defend their actions. The Police got away, unchallenged, with “the three officers were performing their duties”.
Calls for a Public Enquiry into Montebello are certainly warranted, even years later. When you see the video footage it’s a little hard to swallow the explanations given by the Police. The officials responsible “will not comment”.
1. 2012 TO: Conservative MP Blake Richards re his private member’s bill to make it a crime to wear a mask at protests. Remember Montebello, it was the police who wore the masks.
In Blake’s world it is the protestors who wear masks and are the villains, hence the need for legislation to criminalize the wearing of masks.
He is naïve. In fact the “provocateurs” are plants, in this case the Police, in other cases they are professionals hired by the corporatists.
The 2012 email to Blake includes a verbal description of what happened at Montebello, along with other points.
2. . . . Democracy overtaken by Corporatocracy = coup d’état. Citizens fight to regain democracy = Revolution (insurgency) . . .
In August 2007 numerous people and organizations called upon Stockwell Day, Minister Responsible, to launch a Public Enquiry into police actions at Montebello. I have appended just one of the thoughtful submissions to Day as example (scroll down, it’s after the picture of the police provocateurs or “instigators”).
There has been no public enquiry to date. The Government repeatedly demonstrates that it operates outside the law and democratic principles.
– The SPP (Montebello) is essentially transnational corporate interests working with the Government, the same as at the WTO meetings in Seattle (Battle in Seattle, the movie).
– For Montebello, police were trained, disguised and deployed for the assigned purpose of turning a peaceful protest violent.
– Media traditionally report on the violence, and not on the message of the protestors. The deployment of Provocateurs is therefore an effective strategy to silence the dissent over “who is running the Government?“. In whose interests are we “governed”?
I googled for some updated explanation that would say the police WERE NOT trained, disguised and deployed to turn the protest violent, because it is so hard to believe – – I would like to find some reason not to believe it. Sorry – it’s not there.
I phoned the office of NDP Member-of-Parliament Libby Davies, one of the ones who led the call for an Enquiry. Her office confirmed that there has never been a response from the Harper Government to the 15-month-old call for an Enquiry.
I spoke with Paul Manly who pieced together the Montebello video which includes the completely inadequate explanation from the Quebec police, “the three police men were doing their job“.
You can google and find the CBC, CTV and other media reports if you are in doubt about the police incidents. This link mentions the police shoes that gave the disguised policemen away.
Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest (CBC)
(In case the link becomes invalid, there is a copy of the article at http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=749)
I am left with the conclusion that the evidence is very solid to say that police officers were trained, disguised and deployed to turn peaceful protest violent. Which is against the law.
The need for a Public Enquiry is so damned obvious. It’s more than a year later and nothing.
Montebello is a critical event. We are into a police state if this is allowed to go un-addressed.
– if you were the people who got away with the police acts at Montebello, and you know there will be more protests, what would be your strategy for next time?
There are two possibilities:
a. Make sure that the disguised police officers are not wearing police shoes! (it was their shoes that gave them away).
b. (the more likely, and consistent with what is happening in the U.S.) “Out-source” the police/military and prison functions of the society. It is much more difficult for anyone to be held accountable, or to be discovered.
Remember from Battle in Seattle (documented not only in the movie): once the violence started, the police were placed in a strait-jacket with instructions not to interfere with the trashing of property – for a period of time. THEN they were called in with tear gas and rubber bullets, etc.
And I am sorry that I have this good recall for some things that I keep repeating. One of them is the “Canada First Defence Strategy” from June 2008. Canada will have “compatible doctrine” and “interoperability” with the U.S. security forces. The SPP is a joint undertaking with the U.S. and Mexico that includes the “security” forces.
Option b must not happen. It’s why I’m an activist.
I don’t know just when, but we need to mount a renewed campaign to force the Public Enquiry into Montebello.
APPENDED: one person’s (Scott Alexander Ross’s) letter to Stockwell Day.
Monday, August 27, 2007
To Stockwell Day the Honourable Member of Parliament for Okanagan – Coquihalla
On Monday August 20 there was an incident during the protest at the North American Leaders Summit in Montebello Quebec; this event was documented partially by video and by eye witnesses. Without either of those sources no one can attempt to say what happened at the protest.
The video on YouTube shows one masked protester pushing other protesters with one hand while having a large rock in the other; this masked man is followed by two others who eventually make their way to the police line where they force their way through and are pushed to the ground.
The video also showcases that at this event it was audible many peaceful protesters thought these masked protesters were provocateurs, police agents who sought to incite the crowds. Indeed as the video circulated on the internet the next day, this type of speculation grew. Comparisons were made based on similarities between the protesters in question and the police who were arresting them, such as the fact they were wearing the same boots.
Through every comparison made the Quebec Police responded that those three masked protesters were not police agents.
On Thursday August 23 the Quebec Police announced those three masked protesters were in fact police; they added however that those members were not trying to provoke the crowds. The Quebec Police as well as yourself suggest that the undercover officers’ cover was blown when they refused to throw stones they were carrying rather than by trying to incite conflict.
This recent acknowledgement that those masked men were police stands to show the Quebec Police did not tell the truth. As of today no one has explained why the Quebec Police literally lied.
Now with numerous protesters present at Montebello saying the police agents were actually acting as provocateurs there is a disagreement over what happened at the event. With two conflicting sides it is hard to determine what in fact happened at the protest. Mr. Day by your refusing an inquiry you have necessarily taken one of the following positions, either: there is no conflict over what happened, the Quebec Police are right, or that it is not that important of a conflict.
I hope the first possible position is ruled out right away, as it is evident in the video as well as by the protesters, newspapers, and fellow Canadians that there is a conflict.
To reply to your second possible position, that you believe the Quebec Police are correct, I must ask for evidence. Unless there is other evidence besides the Quebec Police testimony, which itself is in doubt as their credibility has been tainted by their being on the record as lying; I would argue besides the numerous independent eye witness accounts, that the video evidence contradicts the Quebec Police perspective. The department states the police were only holding the rocks to look like protesters, yet the video displays that when asked to put down the rocks to look like protesters the masked police decline; therefore a contradiction arises between the Quebec Police’s version and the video evidence. The Quebec Police may be right, but when faced with strong evidence to suggest otherwise, unless you know of any other evidence other then eye witness testimony, one cannot rationally deny the possible alternatives.
Lastly if you take the position this is not important enough for an inquiry I would respond that no one other then God can know what happened, as humans we have certain limits but through investigation we can apprach a close level of certainty. We can only come close through investigation and through the weighing of evidence.
In your refusing an inquiry you have decided it should not be investigated. I have made clear there is a disagreement over what happened and that there is strong evidence to support either side; if that is not enough to consider holding an inquiry, I would finally argue the subject matter is:
Canadian citizens, supported by eye witness accounts and video evidence, accuse Canadian Police officers of trying to provoke them to break the law.
This accusation claims that Canadian government employees were attempting to motivate Canadian citizens expressing their freedom of association and freedom of speech to become arrested; which in effect is claiming the Canadian government not only does not respect certain freedoms but oppresses them.
Democratic governments are built upon a trust between it’s citizens and it’s officials. When citizens doubt their democratic government and even go so far as suspect their government officers of wrong doing, and that government does nothing to quench such doubt, there cannot be trust. Without trust, people don’t vote and the government ceases to be representative. Without representation the government ceases being democratic.
For mine and the other numerous Canadian citizens who are currently in doubt over how the Quebec Police handled the Protesters in Montebello, and in effect doubting officers acting with powers given to them by the Canadian government, I ask you to change your decision and hold an inquiry into this matter in order to restore trust in certain officers of our Government.
Scott Alexander Ross