Mary Hutcheon

When Paul Martin, Minister of Finance announced, in October last year, that Canada was going to host two meetings of the 3 most influential International Finance Institutions (IFI) - the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and G20; and given that there is a growing momentum of resistance challenging the existence of these organizations; it ought not be surprising that the city of Ottawa would be a very different place during November 16th, 17th and 18th. There was only about four weeks to prepare ourselves that the World Bank (IBRD) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the G20 were coming to town.

What did this mean?

It means that Nov 16th to 18th was another opportunity to engage in constructive dialogue in public space, a dialogue that is more open to dissenting ideas and more provocative than an edited government script. It means that N16, 17 and 18 would be another chance to raise the volume of voices that speak to the ignorance and exclusivity of these "Groups of" - the Bretton Woods Institutions, the G5/7/8 and brainchild of the G7: the G20. It means that whatever form the political elite re-constitute themselves, people will also gather together in the same place to challenge the status quo of international governance. It means that despite intensifying militarization of police and security, resistance is about putting democracy into action. It means that people can and will challenge the degree of economic integration, privatization, industrialization and violence that these IFIs/ G-groups create and perpetuate. To me, it means that if I believe we live in a place that still says it's a "free and open society" then it is my duty as citizen to help ensure that this is the case. And if we don't live in a society that respects all persons and is respectful of dialogue, dissent and living according to a politic of peace, then it means that I, along with other people, are going to speak out. We are upset by the lack of accountable representation in the policies that are made in our name and for our benefit and justified by the rhetoric of good intentions to feed the hungry, house the homeless, cure the diseased and generally create wealth to help the poor.

When I heard that these international institutions are coming to Ottawa I figured that the police and other security organizations were also going to follow their established norm, which seems to be more about intensifying police brutality, violence and repression against people gathering peaceably. I would ask that the panel focus some of their attention on why the police acted in the manner that they did. Some people say that police serve a legitimate function to maintain public order and peace. However I cannot accept that such a function is used to suppress street level protests or that policing means that snatch squads, weapons and pre-emptive strikes are used to control where people go while they attempt to reclaim public access to gather, challenge, protest and in a more daily setting, to eat, walk and talk. Some would say protestors can and should take to the streets as long as they follow a protocol arranged according to police guidelines. This is unacceptable, not because some people live a life that is shaped by state and police violence - although this is a truth to consider -- but that the rules of protest are designed to quell dissent, rather than to move out of the culture of violence that policing agents are working within.

I would like to remind members of the panel that for many who come to protest, the security arrangements have nothing to do with their safety or protection. Instead these meetings demonstrate that security is about securing the already well fed, housed and generally well off. Here, I'm talking about the beneficiaries and creators of World Bank, IMF and G20. The growing influence of corporations that have profits larger than the Gross National Product (GNP) and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of some of the G20 countries merely ensures a security regime that protects the people who create the rules and institutions designed to administer international finance and trade.

Who is the G20?

They are executive officers of the World Bank and the IMF and president of the central bank of the European Union, finance ministers and chief banking officers from 19 countries Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.

What is the Spokes-council?

The N17 spokes-council was created to organize, as many people from a wide range of groups as could be possible in 3 weeks.

From church groups, to students groups, to collectives and affinity groups; people formed memberships from their own communities of faith, anarchists, environmentalists, humanitarians and the curious. N17 Spokes-council was an unstructured group with often tenuous agreements but were nevertheless comprised of people committed to mounting a day to protest against the World Bank, IMF and G20 economic fora.

What was the purpose of the N17 Spokes-council, and what was my participation? I am a member of Global Democracy Ottawa, GDO, a grass-roots collective. GDO was one organization sitting at the spokes council, but we also had some established resources, such as a web site and list serve. A small group of GDO members helped to facilitate meetings, gather funds and track expenses. We were willing to share our resources with other groups to save time and effort.

While GDO had significant public exposure and its members were on several logistical working groups, people from other groups joined in to ensure a peaceful protest. Through the N17 Spokes-council, logistical features of protest were organized: housing, legal and jail support, street medics, welcome centre, food all of which operated from Thursday November 16th to Sunday November 18th, and not the least of all, an action committee that dealt with the details of the Saturday march and rally. A major concern among members of the spokes, was how security and police operate to quell protest and use protestors' behavior to justify policing methods of intimidation, snatch squads, chemical repellants, pain compliance such as tasers, twisting limbs and using pressure points. However, another consideration is that the police rarely have anything to do with the reasons why people go out to the street to protest or conduct an action that directly confronts the dominance of political and economic institutions. Despite the police use of intimidation and attacks, for some this is not sufficient reason to be scared away from planning confrontational actions. Rather the police seem to be in the way, preventing people from achieving their objective to stop the blind faith and compliant obedience to the dictates of these G# groups, and Bretton Woods institutions.