Dear Citizens' Panel on Policing and the Community,

We, the undersigned, were delegated with the task of liaising with the police around logistics and legal concerns for the "N17" protests against the World Bank, IMF and G20.

Our mandate in liaising with the police was very specific and limited: we were there to communicate the route of the "family-fun" March on November 17 (an event which was to include all members of the community) and to ensure full access to legal services for any potential political detainees.

In addition to the above, we needed to seek police assistance in expediting the permit approval process to ensure proper access to Supreme Court lawns and to LeBreton Flats.

We were not mandated to negotiate on behalf of all protesters, nor to discuss any other events being organized by individual organizations before or during that weekend.

We initiated the contact with police through several avenues. However, phone calls to officers, apparently designated to liaise with us, were not returned. Despite public assurances by police (through the media and in meetings with retailers) that they were consulting meaningfully with protest groups, a full week transpired before police managed to meet with us - only 5 days before the protests.

We met with a representative of the Ottawa Police and RCMP on Tuesday, November 13. The police representatives solicited information respecting leaders in the movement, involvement of and particulars of individual groups, and details of tactics planned by all groups. They also solicited our consent that demonstrators who arrived by bus be individually searched.  We confined our communications within the mandate assigned to us and indicated that a peaceful march and rally was planned and excessive displays of police force would be intimidating, unnecessary and provocative.

We felt that we had achieved, through one face-to-face meeting and subsequent telephone conversations, agreements on key issues:

- a minimal police presence during the March and Rally on November 17; and
- access to legal services for detainees.
 
Certainly, we felt there was sufficient agreement to, in good conscience, actively encourage all members of the community, from church congregations to families to the elderly and disabled, to participate in our march and rally.

The police behaviour over the course of the weekend violated each point of agreement and made a mockery of the cooperative tone of the initial discussions.

Despite the complete absence of any provocation, the information respecting the routes of the marches on November 17 was used by police to mount barricades of riot police, establish gauntlets of illegal searches, harass the demonstrators by coralling or splitting them, inflict 'snatch' arrests, assault protesters with dogs, and a host of other offences. These attacks were enabled, to our grief, by the information we provided.

Also, the agreement of police to facilitate access to counsel of choice through the Legal Support Collective was grossly violated. Not only were the majority of detainees not allowed access to the Counsel of their choice, most detainees were not allowed access to Counsel of any kind

We know this Panel will hear from community members whose experiences will dramatically illustrate the full extent of police violence and abuse of power, stemming from the violations, by police, of the agreements made with us. The community will speak of its experience. Listen well.

Alas, we conclude that the best efforts of the police liaison group only helped facilitate police violence against our persons and against our rights. We therefore recommend that other activists who, in future, seek to liaise with police around protests of any kind, consider the following:

1.      The ability of the community to have an open and trusting relationship with police was seriously damaged. Not only was our trust in our police violated, it was used against us to attain the needed tactical information in launching a full out offensive against a peaceful march.

2.      Before any further liaising should occur, there must be effective accountability for police actions in this regard, including but not limited to an apology for wrongdoing and sanctions against superior officers that chose to violate the agreement with the Liaison group and compromise fundamental rights of protesters, such as access to legal council of choice.

3.      To other citizens considering staging protests in Ottawa: If you or your group meets formally with police on behalf of any effort, ensure all agreements are documented formally and all conversations with police audio-recorded.

Sincerely,

Vicky Smallman
Peter Atack
Sarah Dover
David Robbins