I have taken to the streets many times over the past 20 years. In the beginning to oppose nuclear weapons and cruise missile testing; on one occasion to oppose the Pictou Centre liberal MP’s stand against the inclusion of sexual orientation in the hate crimes legislation and, more recently, on matters relating to the effects of increasing globalization. I am an ordained minister of the United Church of Canada and, at the November 17th march, I wore my clerical collar which was very visible.

I had never before experienced a major presence of police until the FTAA protest in front of the Department of Foreign Affairs earlier in the year. And that protest was well managed on the part of the protesters, and the presence of police was not too intrusive.

This was the background of experience with which I arrived at LeBreton Flats on Saturday morning the 17th of November last. I had set out to attend what I believed to be a non-violent protest. After the speeches the procession started moving in a friendly atmosphere. The group I was with were towards the back of the parade and, as is often the case, we could not see what was going on too far ahead, in spite of my 6 ft 2 in height. As we approached the intersection of Booth and Albert, I was extremely surprised to find a picket of police in riot gear strung across the street (Sketch A). I’m sure you’ve already heard about that experience several times. Although the parade marshals encouraged us all to keep moving, I chose to stand behind the police picket to offer moral support to those who still had to pass through and as I stood there I began to sing “Amazing

Grace” as a sign of that support and a reminder of what is greater than all of us.

When the last of the marchers was moving through the picket of police I continued to march with them, there were only about a dozen of us in this group. At this point, for no apparent reason the riot police closed ranks along the length of the street (sketch B). They began their shuffle across the street, east to west, in the direction shown by the arrows. the parade marshals were still encouraging us to keep moving and not to do anything to provoke them. Even though we were moving away from their position, they kept coming. The second last one in the line bumped me with his shield and the last officer (indicated by the open circle on the sketch) did not have a shield, instead he held a machine gun diagonally across his chest. He deliberately pushed me with the gun, to which one of the parade marshals shouted, “What did you do that for? He (meaning me) didn’t do anything.” Al though this was supposed to be a non-violent protest, it was looking less like that at this point, but not on the part of anything I had seen any protester do. I also have to say that I was beginning to feel an adrenaline rush which, I am sure under different circumstances might have caused me to react in a more aggressive manner. I wondered at the time if that was the intention of this cohort of police - to provoke us into reaction. For there was nothing in that first section of Booth Street that could have been attacked, nor did any attacks take place. That initiative lay solely with the police. That puzzle was re-inforced by the total absence of police visibly lining the route in many places where the potential for damage to both bystanders and property was much greater.

We all continued marching around the corner onto Albert St. After a 100 metres or so, I decided to go back to my car for something. Peoples’ Potato is a food collective that had a van down at LeBreton Flats, offering free breakfasts to any who wanted them. As I got closer to Booth Street, I noticed a commotion at the intersection

(Sketch C). The Peoples’ Potato van was stopped at the traffic lights with four police vans surrounding it. The 6 or so young people in the van were being ordered out by police and, when I heard them ask “Why?” they were told, “Go and stand on the grass and you’ll find out.” The driver of the van was allowed to stay in his seat. I decided that it would probably be good to be a “witness” to this experience, in case the young people needed other voices later on. So I went and stood on the kerb looking at the two policemen who were searching the van, as well as glancing towards the police and young people on the grass beyond the side-walk. I said to the officer who was searching the van through the side door, “What are you looking for?” He responded, “Good morning, father! We’re just searching the van.” I said something like “Don’t damage the food please, that’s for people who need it.” He carried on searching. I moved towards the officer searching through the back door and said something similar. He put his hand on my chest and said, “Get on the sidewalk!” So I did. On the sidewalk, one of the other officers said, “Have you been searched yet?” “No!“ I replied “I was just asked to stand on the sidewalk.”. So he said, “Get to the back of the line.” I did so and was “patted down”. None of us was arrested, and a few moments later we were all let go. In fact the police looked like they were in a real hurry to go somewhere else, because before the young people had got back into their van, the police vehicles had all left.

It was a search that was both unnecessary and intimidating - I would classify it as harassment, which, I am sure was what was intended for both the Peoples Potato folk and myself. I do not consider this type of activity “restrained” as has been characterized by some police spokespersons, and I hate to think of what unrestrained behaviour might have been in those circumstances. Again, I ask, how could that be described as protecting my/our security. I believe that the police had no reasonable cause to search me, and the same was probably true of the young people and the van.

Another group that provides free food for the protesters is “Bread Not Bombs.” Later in the afternoon, I saw the “Bread Not Bombs” crew heading for the streets from the kitchen at First United Church, with boxes of fresh food for the marchers. Before they left, they were all given very clear instructions by their leaders to not engage in protest activities, nor to take with them anything that might be construed in any way as weapon, not cell phones or pagers, nor even nail clippers. Their job was to get the food to the people. They were not to resist if police asked to examine the contents of their boxes of food, instead they were to co-operate.

Whatever else the operations of the law enforcement agencies were on November 17th, they were a clear case of overkill, overkill, overkill. I have heard the Ottawa Police Chief use the post September 11th climate as justification for such measures. Well, there may be occasions when that is justified, but I find it hard to believe it can be justified in this instance. If they were operating on the basis of “intelligence”, then in my opinion it was neither very smart, nor very accurate “intelligence” about the make-up and intentions of the crowd on November the 17th.

It is sad to think, given the number of non-violent citizens of Ottawa and region, who participated in the protests of those 3 days, that not one official or politician has publicly indicated any understanding or compassion for these gross violations of our constitutional rights. It is only through the efforts of those who have pushed that this panel is meeting, and I am very appreciative of all their contributions. Even so, there may only be input from protesters as the panel has no power to ensure that the story from the other side is heard. If all the police can do is sit there in the audience and listen and then plan, at some point, to make a public response to either what they have heard these days, or to the findings of the panel, I for one will not be listening to what they say. It is exactly that kind of unilateral, authoritarian presumption that created this mess in the first place. If they choose not to participate in this public discussion of the events then, in my opinion, they have no right to speak “ex cathedra” (my apologies to Bishop Coffin) about what happened back in November.

At the Police Services Board meeting just after the events, there was a display of all that had been confiscated from protesters. 90% was understandable (Backpacks, masks, bottles of vinegar, etc.), the rest questionable at best, if it was supposed to indicate the evil intents of that large crowd of people who marched from LeBreton to the Supreme Court. Even I would have been carrying a mask to protect myself, after the events of Quebec City, if I had anticipated it being repeat of that experience.

Inspite of the experience and although I have heard about the far worse treatment of others in the march and after arrest, I refuse to be intimidated by the events of last November. I claim my right to lawful assembly, the freedom to speak my mind, and the right to protest in non-violent marches such as the one I set out to attend on that morning of Nov 17th, 2001.