On November 8, 1793, Madame Roland was conveyed to the guillotine. Before placing her head on the block, she bowed before the clay statue of Liberty in the Place de la Révolution, uttering the famous remark for which she is remembered: “O Liberté, que de crimes on commet en ton nom!”
Translated into the language of the Toronto of the G20, this means: “O Security, what imbecilities are committed in thy name!”
Perhaps this is not an accurate translation. The word “security” does not really suggest the precise subtext of the events.
“O Fear, what imbecilities are committed in thy name!”
Admittedly, this is not a perfect translation either. No one admits to being afraid. Also, the wording does not include the suggestion that the elaborate and well-publicized planning, the massive police presence and the fences might be interpreted by some, not only as a provocation, but actually as an invitation to more than the usual kind of protest. It suggests that there might be a quantitative relationship between police and protester: for every policeman – three protesters – or perhaps for every protester – three policemen.
But if the right word is “fear,” what is it that the authorities are afraid of? Well, that is easy. They are afraid something terrible might happen to the participants of the G20. No one would doubt that every reasonable precaution had to be taken to prevent that. But surely the precautions went way beyond that. There was the matter of the protests.
An intriguing question arises. Is it conceivable that the authorities needed the protests to justify the hugely expensive precautions? When there is Government by Fear, the people in authority have to demonstrate to one and all that they are so wise that the people have no reason to be afraid. The authorities will protect them. The bigger, the more inconvenient the precaution, the greater the governmental display of wisdom.
Is there any evidence in the past that authorities have played a role in masterminding the protest?
There is. A few years ago at Montebello, the Securité de Quebec masqueraded as violent protesters armed with rocks in order to precipitate violent confrontations. They were discovered and identified by their SQ-issue boots.
The purpose of that intervention may have been not very different from what has been described above.
Let us get back to Toronto this weekend. What were the “violent criminals” after? To get a kick out of the trouble they were making? If they came from Quebec, was that worth the trouble of coming here? And what about the large majority of the non-violent activists of one kind or another? Let us assume that for many their participation was intended to demonstrate that they were living in a police state dominated by exploitative capitalists. Let us also assume that they were provoking the police in the hope that they would retaliate. That would prove that they were living in a police state. Well, that is an intelligible motivation though laughable to anybody who has actually lived in a police state. Could one argue that they, too, acted out of fear – fear of the future?
The activists on behalf of the poor or of oppressed minorities, or to promote great issues like climate change, may have thought that they were doing good. Surely that is an illusion. There are many ways for serious citizens to work effectively for those causes in places other than the streets.
However, having pointed that out, one must not yield to the temptation to frown on those activists who genuinely believe that the leaders in the G20 are not equipped, for any number of reasons, to serve the public good. To them, there is only one answer. For better or worse, those are the leaders we have.
Non-violent anarchists and libertarians were no doubt also among the activists. No one should question their integrity. Neither they nor their fellow activists should be blamed for not understanding that they are innocent pawns in a great game played by those in authority who exercise their power by making the public believe that the world is far more dangerous than it really is.
Source for the paragraph about Montebello: Hanns Skoutajan.
We saw a city in a heightened state of over-reaction. The cops and the protesters, both. In the end, no one was killed or injured which is remarkable. Not one person showed up in an emergency ward (there may have been some who were injured but believed that by showing up in a hospital they would be arrested. We will likely never know). But the real casualties are in the anxiety levels and the sense that next time it will be worse.
The event carries considerable theatrical appeal. Looked to me that there were considerably more spectators than “protesters”, or vandals, on the streets. And the TV coverage seemed fueled by the adrenalin of where the next outbreak of violence might take place. “News” or just reality TV? All that air time to fill….
Politics has always been, in part, theatre. Imagine when the TV coverage would have been like of Madame Roland on the guillotine on the Place de la Révolution…..
A lot of interesting stuff is mentioned. I was wondering what the protesters really wanted, whom they represented and who organized the so-called riots. Were they under illusion that what they wanted would be closer to being realized by burning a few cars ????
This blog is not equipped to answer your question. It can do a lot but cannot look inside people’s minds. But it can guess. It guesses that most protesters are dissatisfied with the way the authorities exercise their authority and think, rightly or wrongly, that they can do better. The violent ones are very angry. For the roots of anarchism, Google Count Peter Kropotkin.