Note: Mr. Ryan made an oral presentation to the Panel on Thursday February 28, 2002. This letter to the Ottawa Citizen, published on December 11, 2001 forms the basis for his submission.

G20 clashes show the last thing police need is more powers

Ottawa Police Chief Vince Bevan's Nov. 26 testimony before the Police Services Board concerning the protests at
the G20 summit proves the danger of giving police expanded authority under Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill.  The practices of the police included use of inappropriate force and pre-emptive arrests, powers police will be given
under Bill C-36.

On Nov. 17, some 3,000 protesters gathered at three rallying points. They were to join together on Laurier Avenue
and march past Parliament Hill to a rally at the Supreme Court building. Organizers of the march had a permit and
had informed the police of their route.

At LeBreton Flats, every participant had to walk through a phalanx of police who proudly displayed their batons and
tear-gas canisters. Police arrested people before they could start the march. Police dogs were used to attack
demonstrators.

Church leaders testified to the Police Services Board that when they approached police to protest these actions,
they were punched in the face and pushed in the back with batons.

When the march reached Laurier and Bay, riot police intervened again to make more arrests. The only common
thing among those hauled away was that they were wearing black clothes and black hoods. Police admitted as
much at a press conference on Nov. 18.

Demonstrators leaving from the University of Ottawa were denied access across the Laurier Bridge unless they
submitted to a search.

The 50 people arrested that weekend were denied the opportunity to phone lawyers of their choice. Personal
property, such as clothes and jewelry, are still being held "as evidence." Of the 50 arrested, 43 were released in less
than 24 hours with no charges.

What does Chief Bevan say in defence of these actions? I quote: "We took pro-active steps necessary to ensure
public security and safety. These steps were appropriate and justified.

"Interventions taken by police officers during the protests were based on reliable information we obtained from several
sources. Actions taken were not random, and escalated and de-escalated in response to what was happening at the
time within the crowds."

In other words, people were being targeted for arrest on suspicion alone, prior to any possible criminal action.
To quote Chief Bevan again: "Another issue involved the seizure of gas masks. When seizures were made, they
were not arbitrary. Previous experience shows a strong connection between those who wear gas masks and those
seeking to evade detection or avoid apprehension for criminal acts."

The purchase of gas masks is legal in Canada. Protesters have previous experience as well. The 5,500 tear-gas
canisters fired in Quebec City weren't aimed just at the rock throwers; they permeated through the 65,000 people
who marched in opposition to the FTAA. Bandanas and cider vinegar weren't enough to protect you. Bringing a gas
mask to the G20 protests did not mean you were about to commit a criminal act, but it was enough for you to get
arrested or have your property seized.

Chief Bevan said: "We were heartened by the fact that the City of Ottawa experienced very little violence during the
G20 meetings. But for anyone who may feel that security measures were disproportionate to the potential threat, I
would draw to their attention the array of objects displayed on the table behind me. Those potentially dangerous
materials remind us that not everyone came to Ottawa to engage in peaceful protest."

At least two-thirds of the potentially dangerous materials were gas masks. Other things were poles to carry banners
and sticks to carry signs. While there were some rocks and five Swiss army knives, the number of "dangerous
weapons" was pretty small.

The police response to the G20 protests shows the worst potential of Bill C-36. Police will be able to detain people
for 72 hours on suspicion alone, not just 24 hours that police use today. People will be targeted for the clothes they
wear or the company they keep. They will not only be denied the legal counsel of their choice, they could be forced
to testify before a judge. If the judge rules they could be a terrorist, they could be held for up to a year without
anyone being informed of the information leading to that decision.

Chief Bevan's testimony Nov. 26 shows that police consider any anti-globalization protesters as potential terrorists.
No wonder United Church minister Neil Wallace testified that he was made to feel like a suspect for simply
demonstrating.