Nancy Lauder

To begin, I would thank 'The Citizens' Panel on Policing and the Community' for this opportunity for citizens, who suffered in the events surrounding November 17th, to express their concern, anger, and hopes for resolution and reconciliation in the future. This Panel is one more step in the many which have gone before, towards achieving and maintaining democracy in the face of opposing ideologies and corporately funded oppression through the use of police agencies otherwise employed to keep the peace and to protect Canadians like myself. Yes, there are those who would see an end of the ability of citizens to shape their societies through the democratic acts of their state. They would see us, our world with its resources, used and abused, or, worse, if citizens get in the way of their Corporate Agenda. One goal of their agenda is to get rid of parliamentary democracy and replace it autocratic rule, in pursuit of profit and increasing control of the resources required to generate it. I would like to focus on how those who set the International Corporate Business Itinerary are in the process of trying to shift the focus of the Canadian Government and the public toward the implementation of their agenda, and away from democracy, using the police.

How are those who set the Corporate Agenda at work to put this agenda into place? They are at work, through the International Monitory Fund. For example: "With Mexico's entry into GATT (now the World Trade Organization) and then NAFTA, few sectors of the Mexican economy have benefited and only at great social cost. Since NAFTA, employment has stagnated and poverty has increased considerably. In 1994 there were 36.2 million Mexicans living in extreme poverty; two years later, in 1996, there were 50.9 million, in a country of 90 million people. Today nearly three-quarters of the population live in poverty." (As quoted from an article in 'Education Forum, Winter 2002, written by Grant Sundal, teacher for the Durham District School Board and a member of the provincial communications and excellence in education committee.)

Is this what we want for Canadians? Greater disparity and eroding social programmes indicate that this is the slippery path on which we have been placed by the WTO agencies. Canadians, to their sorrow, are recognizing this trend. In Ottawa, petitions to governments, letters to the editor, phone calls to politicians and, many, many meetings have had little apparent effect on the policies of our levels of government. One means left to express the citizens' disapproval of the policies of those in power is to physically stand up in the street and be counted as a dissenter.

Of Mexico, Sundal goes on to write, "The Fox administration also seems increasingly willing to use the repressive techniques of previous regimes to quell protest -- intimidation, imprisonment and violence." Does this sound familiar to those who took part in the non-violent protest march on November 17th?

How do those, who set this agenda of usurping democracy to replace it with autocratic rule, protect themselves while they meet to plan their next moves? One method used is to meet, in secret, behind the protection of fortress walls, barricades and with police protection. I was first conscious of the lengths to which corporatists would go to protect their interests against dissention with news of the pathetic, gratuitous violence of the pepper spraying incident in Vancouver. This act  of police brutality was, for me, a concrete sign that democracy in Canada was being seriously compromised. Then, I felt that forces which had the power to intimidate our government were using the police inappropriately. In Quebec City, this knowledge/intuition was reinforced in spades, by the sinister, heavily armed police, the tear gas that poured down upon our non-violent march, and the flood of reports of gratuitous brutality on the part of the police against a few "violent protesters" who chose to appear at the wall. The fact that there was, in comparison, an utter lack of media coverage of the twenty-five to thirty thousand strong, non-violent protesters marching through the streets below, served to further reinforce what I grimly suspected.

In mid autumn, the Canadian Government announced that it would be hosting a renewed "Alphabet Soup" in Ottawa on November 17th. With such a very short time line in which to regroup, Ottawa based activists did their very best to organize a non-violent protest march. Citizens willing and hoping to take a stand converged at LeBreton Flats.

They were there to protest actions perpetrated by the World Bank and the IMF such as the extraction of 300 billion dollars in interest, during the 1990's from South America that has helped to bring Argentina to its knees (Source: Petras and Veltmyer). When the November meetings were being planned, those in power were so confident that their ends justified the means that they planned and practiced brutal intimidation upon the citizens through the body of the police force.

During this peaceful November 17th non-violent protest march I witnessed heavily armed police snatch a group of young people who had been walking peacefully with us. Included in one arrest was the woman who was to have M.C.'d the rally at the end of the march at the Supreme Court Building. I witnessed a trained german shepherd police dog gnawing on the leg of a father who, with his two children was taking part in this march. I was at the corner of Bay and Laurier Streets when a cordon of nearly fifty, riot garbed police, with face guards down, shields up, guns held, and with trained dogs at the ready for every four enforcers of what we are coming to know, blocked off the march by forming a square around the intersection.

These are additional observations that I would like to make:

First, I believe that it was unconscionable that those whom Canadians have elected and appointed to put in charge of the well being of Canadians allowed the citizens of Quebec City, in April, and of Ottawa, in November, to be a human shield for those who were meeting in these cities. In Quebec, the population, especially those citizens living within and around the wall were held hostage. They suffered the stress of weeks of inconvenience, the stress of the unknown potential of undetermined warfare, the stress of the actuality of tear gas and the stress of actually witnessing cruel battle. Again, in Ottawa, traffic was rerouted, public buildings were closed, and, there was brutality in the streets. Moreover, in the post September climate of fear, this unwelcome gathering, housed within our city, brought with them, to the people of Ottawa, the increased possibility of a terrorist attack. No citizen, no city ought ever be exposed to this imposed war zone.

How can we prevent this from happening again? I would recommend that no gathering of such a target that is cause for citizens to protest ever be permitted to assemble within the confines of the citizens' domain. I would recommend to this Panel that those who allowed this to take place in our city, Ottawa, be held accountable, admit that they have offended, and, apologize to our citizens, publicly.

Secondly, our Ottawa Police Force, along with provincial and federal police forces were exploited, in my opinion, by those who were in alliance with the organizers of this meeting. Who will pay for this exercise of domination - the taxpayers of Ottawa through their taxes at not only the municipal level, but also the provincial and federal levels, or those who arranged that representatives of the IMF and of the World Bank would arrive in this city? I believe that the Canadian public ought not to be charged for this misappropriation of public funds. I would recommend that those in collusion with these wealthy, unwelcome guests, exact the payment from this group for their self indulgent "party".

As a member of Global Democracy Ottawa, a representative to the Spokescouncil from the Unitarian Congregation and as a law abiding citizen, I was among those who endorsed the need to form a liaison with the police concerning the logistic and legal concerns for the November 17th protest against the World Bank, the International Monitory Fund and the G-20. I trusted the police as I trusted my fellow negotiators. I trusted my fellow participants in the non-violent protest march. During the march, my fellow protesters remained peaceful. In the face of abusive provocation, by the police forces, they maintained their composure. For my fellow negotiators, the illusion of trust in the police began to be eroded early. Phone calls to the officers apparently designated to liaison with the Spokescouncil’s representatives were not returned. Meanwhile, to the public, police issued untruthful assurances that they were in the process of consulting meaningfully with our representatives. Only five days before the march did the police, finally, manage to meet with our representatives. At that meeting, the police assured us through our liaison committee that there would be a minimal police presence during the march and rally on November 17th. As well, the police led the negotiators to believe that the police would give access to legal services for detainees. With full confidence in the word of the police, we members of the community assembled to participate in the march and rally. The rest is well documented before this Panel. I would endorse the observations and  recommendations of those who represented the Spokescouncil in attempting to liaison with the police, whose actions on November 16th and 17th have damaged the trust of community policing.

These are documented in their 'OPEN LETTER TO "THE CITIZENS' PANEL ON POLICING AND THE COMMUNITY" FROM THE POLICE LIAISON GROUP OF THE MARCH AND RALLY ON NOVEMBER 17TH, 2001, AGAINST THE IMF, WORLD BANK AND G-20'

It has been suggested that, well in advance of November 17th, the police forces called upon received training to co-ordinate the operation. The strategies used incorporated knowledge of the parade route, which was asked for and given, in trust, to the police by our negotiators. It has been suggested that the forces were just practicing their manoeuvres upon the Ottawa protesters in advance of Bill C36 and its siblings. Apparently, the police forces did everything possible to create a riot. If this is the case they encountered disappointment when they encountered the cool wisdom of those in the march.

For those taking part in the non-violent protest march, it was extremely important to maintain a non-violent demonstration; they wanted to experience no violence. Among the citizenry taking part were eighty-year-old grandmothers, young babies in carriages and back carriers, pre-teens and teenagers. Significantly, there were many, many participants who were of the conviction that violence is not the means to achieve any goal. Adults were aware that "rogue" disrupters were a possibility. Factions of the protesters who had been known to favour violence as a legitimate form of protest were taking part in the march, however, these people had promised that there would be no violent actions during the Protest March or at The Rally. The organizers trusted them. What the organizers did fear could disrupt the march were police infiltrators masquerading as non-violent protesters whose designated role would be to cause disruption to the march, and give the police "cause" to act. For example, on the evening of November 16th, a window at the McDonald's on Elgin Street was smashed during a snake march toward the Peace monument where a religious ceremony was to have been held. Police took the opportunity of the breaking of one window to intervene. Using cruel tactics, they broke up the march and caused the religious ceremony to be cancelled. Just one "violent protester" could have smashed the window, or, it might have been the work of a police infiltrator.

The morning of November 17th must go down in the annals of Canadian History as a victory for the positive power of non-violence. Those educated, thoughtful, conscientious citizens, using their last avenue to express dissention with the policies of their government, began to march in protest of those policies, fully confident that the police would adhere to the mutual agreement of maintaining non-violence. They were voting with their feet for democracy. What no one expected was what those representatives of their municipal, provincial and federal police forces, and their dogs would unleash upon them. They did not expect to be goaded by riot police into becoming a frantic mob. These citizens marched right into a war zone created by their own police, government and its agenda setters.

In the midst of attack, even those protesters who had pledged themselves to non-aggressive action remained passive. WHATBRAVERY!!! WHAT TRAUMA!!!  Faced by police in full riot gear, Some people were assaulted, physically hit by police, others were verbally abused, And still trained dogs bit others. All were intimidated.

What if the riot geared police had succeeded in causing the marcher to panic, fight back and appear to riot? What would have been the gains for those who set this agenda? Had the police succeeded in their task, then, the media would have broadcast to Canadians and to the world, the "story" that Canadian enforcers of the law had succeeded in subduing those "bad" people who had the temerity to be in the streets with their "bad" slogans. Spread to other Canadians and to the world, this would be the intimidating warning, enforcing the faulty design of the Corporate Agenda of, "We are right and we are strong. Don't even think of opposing us. Don't even think!" The public would be frightened.

Further dissention in the form of protests would be stifled. The government would have 'enhanced' the need for further sanctions against protest in the form of even more teeth to further Bills (C, X, Y and Z). Further rough policing would be seen as rational and necessary. All of this would conveniently further the protection of those meeting to forward their schedule. The results of their work would proceed unquestioned, openly, and unopposed, openly. This was an attempt to intimidate the spirit of Canadians.

Every attempt was made to discredit the marchers in order to gain credibility for the police, the government and for the Agenda. It was the marchers, all of whom remained non-violent, who were victorious. What are the gains for democracy? The greatest gain is the validation for the use of the power of non-violence. The strength of these marchers must give cause for reflection by the police, the government and the Agenda setters. It must send a message to the police that they cannot rationalize that the public is out to attack the police. It will cause those government employees who had doubts about the validity of ratifying this bullying, to know that it does not, and ought not work. It may provide them with reaffirming faith in the power of the people. Hopefully, the government and agenda setters will refuse to abuse their power over the police and use them against the innocent public. Hopefully, the government will protect the public, who elected them to public office and who pay their salaries. Hopefully, the government will be reawakened, put aside this dalliance with the Corporate Agenda, and allow democracy to flourish again.

There remain many, yet to be answered questions such as: Who was responsible for calling in extra forces to arrive in riot gear to help the Ottawa Police assault the citizens of Ottawa? Who ordered them to attempt to instigate a riot situation? Why? The suggested route to uncover the answers to these questions has been for the 'Ottawa Police Services Board' to hold an inquiry. Let this begin with this board demanding clarification of these questions from those leaders appointed by the City of Ottawa and from those leaders elected by the citizens of Ottawa. Let this inquiry address all of the Goals of 'The Citizens' Panel on Policing and the Community' concerning the "interactions" between the police and the public surrounding November17th. Let this in depth and very public inquiry begin very soon, progress with speed and, quickly, come to a thoughtful, considerate set of recommendations, which are fair to all, and adhered to by both parties. Only then will true reconciliation begin to take place. Only then may the citizens of Ottawa, perhaps, begin to trust their police and their politicians.

A third concern is that, our media was another target of police brutality. A Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reporter, doing his job to act as the eyes and the ears of the Canadian public, was forced away from his post and bitten by a police dog. In itself, I, as a fellow human being find this brutal act totally repulsive. As a citizen, I suspect that these acts by police constitute a message to be sent to intimidate the media as a whole. Apparently, our media are already, nearly shut down when it is time to present an objective report to the Canadian public, of opposition to, and by, the powers that be. As a Canadian, supposing that I am living in a participatory democracy, I am outraged that my sources of information are so censored.

My final observation is that those who live in Ottawa have the exceptional burden to become out-spoken, proactive critics of the affairs that affect the well being of all Canadians. One way to ensure that we can continue to do this safely and successfully is to move forward to re-establish clear lines of communication with, and, of support from, our Ottawa Police Force. May our testimonies before 'Citizens' Panel on Policing and the Community' be the first step in the achievement of this necessary goal of allowing democracy to flourish. Perhaps, then, all together, we can use our abilities to reduce human suffering, especially when it results from injustices and inequities that can be prevented.

Meanwhile, may those who would usurp democracy reset their agenda according to the democratic agenda. May those who are setting or following the Corporate Agenda acquire a positive set of ethics in order to begin to act to respect, join and help the democracy of the peoples of our earth, as well as to enhance the Web of Life.

Respectfully submitted to 'The Citizens' Panel on Policing and the Community',
Nancy Lauder

P.S. Should you wish to read an outline of the shift toward the 'New World Order' as envisioned by proponents of the Corporate Agenda, and which politicians such as Mr. Michael Harris have been instrumental in putting into place, I recommend the following books by Canadian authors: 'No More Teachers. No More Books' by Heather-Jane Robertson, 'Class Warfare.

The Assault on Canada's Schools' by Maude Barlow and Heather-Jane Robertson, or 'The Unconscious Civilization' by John Ralston Saul. P.P.S. Some suggestions for suggestions for action within a group are:

1.) Attending the meetings of Global Democracy Ottawa (GDO). For information Contact: info@gdo.ca Location: Saint Paul University Room 104 223 Main Street, Ottawa (Wheelchair Accessible) Bus Route #5 & #16 Parking available Global Democracy Ottawa (GDO) Special Meeting Thursday, March 21, 7:30 p.m.

On the Agenda: -An examination of the guiding principles of Global Democracy Ottawa    e.g. what is our mandate, who is our constituency and how do we make decisions? -Where does Global Democracy Ottawa go from here with respect to the G-8 Summit meetings in Kananaskis in June?

Our Meetings are always open to all.

There is also a general GDO meeting to be held the following week at the same location: Tuesday March 26th, 2002 7.30 PM

2.) Forming 'Citizens' Circles' Sponsored By: THE OTTAWA CHAPTER, THE COUNCIL OF CANADIANS Contact information: Armand Cote Tel.: 692-0591 E-mail: beauco@eisa.com Fax: 692-4882 A 'Citizens' Circle' is a group of four to eight people who gather every few weeks to explore the three most important issues facing us all: -What is globalization? -What effects result from globalization? -What are the alternatives?

Those Canadians who treasure the luxury of our democracy and its freedom of speech have much about which to be worried. We travel in the hope that the future will bring changes for the good.