The G-20 Protest in Ottawa: A Personal Account

1. My name is John Baglow. I am the Regional Executive Vice-President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada for the National Capital Region. I reside at 53 Simcoe Street, Ottawa, Ontario.

2. In the course of my work, I liaise frequently with the Ottawa Police to help ensure the rights of our members to picket peacefully during strikes. My relations with the police, on those occasions, have generally been cordial. Former Sergeant Doug Kirkland, for many years labour liaison with the Ottawa Police, can certainly attest to this.

3. On Saturday, November 17, 2001, at approximately 10:00 am, I was present at a rallying point in Lebreton Flats for anti-globalization demonstrators. With my partner, I joined a small contingent of PSAC members who, like others present, were set to march to demonstrate our opposition to the G-20. Our immediate destination was a larger rally that was planned in front of the Supreme Court Building on Wellington Street.

4. Shortly afterwards, we began to make our way out of the Flats, up towards Scott Street. The rally was peaceful, and the mood was one of celebration. At the crest of the low hill that we were walking on, we were met by a large contingent of riot-equipped police. Dogs and assault rifles were in evidence. I saw one officer roughly push a media camera-person away. The body language of the police seemed to me deliberately menacing and provocative. This was, it should be noted, several kilometers away from the “red zone” by the Chateau Laurier.

5. The march continued to move forward, and we headed up the road in the direction of Bronson Avenue. We halted, realizing that approximately half of the marchers had been delayed some way back. After some time, the rest of the march caught up with us. I am given to understand that the cause of the delay was a series of arrests by the police, but I did not personally witness this from where I was.

6. We continued on our way, until we were almost at the corner of Laurier Avenue and Bay Street. Our route had been closed to traffic. The mood continued to be celebratory: residents of apartment buildings were waving to us, chanting and singing was going on, and there was not a trace of violence or vandalism.

7. Without warning, we were set upon by a large contingent of riot police. They drove a wedge into the crowd, and pushed us back with some violence on their part. I was literally inches away from this. Dogs were snapping, I was personally poked with a baton, and I saw a young, slightly-built man, dressed in black, wander in my direction and then past me. A large police officer ran after him, tackled him from behind, threw him onto his face on the ground and handcuffed him. He was then dragged away. At no time did I see the young man do the slightest thing that was provocative, illegal, threatening, or anything in fact that was out of the ordinary.

8. The police were anonymous. They wore no badges or numbers that would identify individual officers. I believe that this point has been made by others, but I also believe that it needs underscoring.

9. My partner and I joined others at this point who sat down virtually at the feet of the riot police line. Judging by what we had been witnessing, it seemed to us that the police had every intention of charging at the unarmed and peaceful protesters behind us: we wanted to impede their advance non-violently, if it were to come. In the event, the police eventually moved off. Their tactics had failed to disperse us, to provoke us or to intimidate us.

10. We continued on to the lawn of the Supreme Court, passing rows of riot police, some of whom exhibited exaggerated, aggressive, provocative body language. The discipline of the crowd remained exemplary, and no one was provoked into illegal behaviour.

11. The rally continued as planned, with some speakers referring to the earlier events of the morning. The mood remained upbeat and positive, despite the police actions. It is worthy of note that no riot police were anywhere in sight during the rally itself.

12. At the conclusion of the rally, a number of individuals decided to march to the barricades in the “red zone.” I chose to accompany them, partly to ensure that the young people who made up the largest part of the march were going to be all right. In addition, I wanted to demonstrate my opposition, not only to the G-20, but to what I was beginning to see as a tremendous threat to my right of peaceful assembly on the part of the police. It was not my intention to engage in any illegal activities whatsoever, nor did I do so.

13. The march went off pretty much without incident to start with. One set of barricades was removed by some marchers, but the second set, a few yards further on, was left alone. I made my way to the barricade itself. I want to stress that there was no attempt by anyone at that time to climb that barricade, or to knock it down. In fact, I witnessed a young man dressed in black shaking the barricade: he was immediately told to “stop it!” by other demonstrators in his vicinity. The crowd immediately at the barricade simply raised their hands in peace signs, and chanted, to the police on the other side, “We’re non-violent, How about you?”

14. The police amused themselves by spraying the demonstrators with water from time to time—I got a good soaking myself. They also beat on their shields and engaged in some provocative posturing. But once again the crowd refused to be provoked.

15. At this point, a little after 3:00 p.m., after much drumming, dancing and chanting had taken place, my partner and I decided to call it a day. We could not go back the way we had come, because the mrach was now hemmed in by riot police both front and back on Wellington Street. We walked down Elgin, but street after street was cordoned off by more riot police. I watched one officer tear down an anti-G-20 poster from a hoarding. We finally found a street, Laurier Avenue I believe, and made our way west to get our car, which we had parked at LeBreton Flats.
 
 
 
 
 
 

The aftermath:

“Terrorism has come to our home turf.” Ottawa Police Chief Vincent Bevan, quoted in the Winnipeg Sun, December 11, 2001.

“Our city has much to be proud of and proved that Ottawa is more than capable of hosting a major economic summit -- post-Quebec, post-Italy and post-Sept. 11. That sent a message to the world, especially the terrorist world that a democratically elected government will not be intimidated or thwarted from hosting a event such as the G20.”  Ottawa Mayor Bob Chiarelli, quoted in the Ottawa Citizen, November 19, 2001.

The line between “terrorism” and civil protest has clearly become dangerously blurred in the minds of senior officials. In the aftermath of September 11, civil liberties appear to be expendable in the battle against an enemy that is everywhere and nowhere. All dissent is suspect.

I attended the meeting of the Ottawa Police Services Board that took place Monday November 26, and joined a number of other concerned citizens who had arrived to make what turned out to be futile presentations to the Board.

On a table at one side was what the Ottawa Police was clearly presenting as “evidence” of something, and so I went over to take what inventory I could. I did see three or four Swiss Army-like knives, similar to one I often carry myself, and a few stones. But these were swamped by a wide variety of articles of clothing: gas masks, gloves, a vest, knee pads; this accounted for at least two-thirds of the contents of the table. I saw sticks that had been removed from the protest signs they had been attached to and tied in a bundle. I saw two cameras and one microphone. I saw a plastic container that had been used as a drum. I saw a spray can of washable chalk paint. There was little or nothing to justify the police excesses that I and many others had witnessed.

Mr. Vincent Bevan, the Ottawa Chief of Police, circulated a prepared statement, translated and typed, exonerating the police before a single presentation had been made. He has continued making this sort of whitewash statement since.  In my observation, he finds the idea of community accountability irrelevant. And certainly, given the shocking lack of responsibility shown by the Ottawa City Council (which voted down a “community healing” motion by two-thirds), and more particularly by Mayor Bob Chiarelli (who has gone out of his way to praise the police for their handling of the protest), there is little reason to think at this point that the police can be held accountable by traditional processes, such as they are.

For this reason, I welcome this inquiry. Perhaps the accumulation of evidence that you will collect might, in itself, help to create a context in which the police once again see themselves as the servants of the community, not its masters. Perhaps it will rouse ordinary citizens, even those who would never dream of becoming involved in street protests, to care more about our fragile democratic freedoms, and even to take a stand against the criminalization of dissent. Perhaps City Councillors and the Mayor, obviously caught up in the current anti-terrorist hysteria, will remember that they have a duty to uphold the rights of the citizens they serve, not merely be political apologists for the destruction of civil liberties. But whatever happens, and I will admit I have no reason to be optimistic, I thank you for your part in helping to create a more aware community. It is an act of profound citizenship on your part, and it merits everyone’s respect.

John Baglow