Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Protesters won't rule out possible acts of violence
People will use 'direct action' to express themselves, says one campaign organizer
By GLORIA GALLOWAY
Saturday, November 27, 2004 - Page A7
OTTAWA -- A coalition of anti-war protesters, left-wing lawyers and anti-capitalists refused repeatedly yesterday to condemn those who might resort to violence during the "loud" demonstrations planned for the visit next week of U.S. President George W. Bush.
"A number of protesters are coming together to protest the real violence going on around the world right now," said Joe Cressy of the No To Bush campaign, which is organizing two large demonstrations for Nov. 30, the day Mr. Bush will be in Ottawa. "People are angry at Bush. People are going to express themselves through art, through direct action, through a number of different formats."
Mr. Cressy would not define what he means by direct action, but his committee has already said it will offer medical and legal help to protesters who need it. "Police response can sometimes act as a provocateur of violence," he said.
Dozens of busloads of people angry with the policies of the U.S. administration are expected to travel to the Canadian capital for Mr. Bush's first official visit to Ottawa. And while numbers are still unclear, organizers say protesters will be coming from as far away as Winnipeg and Fredericton.
While the No To Bush committee is preparing for the demonstrations -- a rally for peace, justice and equality at Confederation Park at noon followed by a 5 p.m. candlelight vigil on Parliament Hill -- another is arguing that the U.S. President should not be allowed into the country in the first place.
" . . . George Bush must be brought to justice rather than treated as a guest in Canada," said Amy Bartholomew, a spokeswoman for the group Lawyers Against the War. "[The organization] is requesting that the Canadian government at least rescind its invitation and deny President Bush's entry into Canada on the basis of Canadian immigration law which bars entry to those who have engaged in gross violations of human rights."
The people of Ottawa have been told to expect delays and detours as police block streets for the President and the protesters. But with the final itinerary still being formulated, and the routes still up in the air, it is impossible to know how extensive the disruptions will be.
Police say they will wear regular uniforms, not riot gear. But barriers will likely be erected to keep demonstrators in areas where they will not interrupt the official visit.
"We hope for peaceful demonstrations. Obviously, we will be monitoring the situation closely," RCMP Sergeant Jocelyn Nimeault said. "Should something happen, we will take whatever action is required to ensure the safety of the police officer, of the demonstrators and of the citizens."
But protest organizers are not similarly concerned.
"We're not saying anything to our members about [the potential for violence] because that's not a relevant worry," Ms. Bartholomew said.
The People's Global Action Block, which is planning its demonstration for Dec. 1, said it plans to wage a powerful protest. "We've highlighted a number of other different businesses and other institutions within the city of Ottawa that are directly affiliated with this empire of Bush's," said Jeremy Bell, the group's spokesman. "The goal is to send a really clear message as to why Bush is not welcome in Ottawa, why he's not welcome in Baghdad, why we are angry."
In other words: "We are threatening violence so you should bring the police but if you do, any violence will be all their fault.""Police response can sometimes act as a provocateur of violence,"
Merlin1047 said:Seems to me that if you have the leadership of these protest groups admitting that they will engage in unlawful conduct, you could just sic the cops on them in advance and send them packing.
Said1 said:I would say this is a good example of hate speach right? Arrest those mad men!
Merlin1047 said:I would differentiate this from hate speech - especially as defined by your law. If I said I was coming to your neighborhood to burn your house down, then there is no reason to sit back and wait to see if I'm actually going to do it. I have stated my intent. If I show up in your neighborhood, then that should be sufficient evidence that I intend to make good on my threat.
and one more for good luck. On the other hand, if I were to get up on a soapbox and say that all french Canadians should be either shipped back to la belle france or fed to polar bears, then that is an opinion which I have a right to voice. But in Canada I can get in trouble for that.
Said1 said:I swear, I forget that damn smilie one more time.......
Merlin1047 said:Gotcha, smartass!!! Laid the trap and you jumped in with both feet. I saw you coming that time and thought I'd throw out a little bait to see if you'd fall for your own tricks.
heh heh. Don't mess with us old folks. We may be getting a little slower, but we're devious and cunning.
:teeth:
Said1 said:What?
Ok look, I really didn't want to be the one to tell you this, BUT while you were away, some men with white coats came looking for you.
