Anti-Olympics protest tactics scrutinized
An SFU expert on anarchism contends that actions like the anti-Olympics riot on February 13 have a legitimate place in broad social-change movements.
Although many people, including activist-lawyer David Eby, are upset about the acts of vandalism committed by masked protesters, history professor Mark Leier is also arguing that it’s a mistake to consider such deeds violence.
Leier is the director of SFU’s Centre for Labour Studies. He told the Georgia Straight that although the protest was neither quiet nor peaceful, it was “more in the way of disturbance than it was violence directed against people”.
“I have a strong suspicion that the kinds of protests that we’re talking about—the smashing of windows—may have created more space for the so-called respectable protest movements,” Leier said in a phone interview. “What I mean by that is the media coverage that I’ve heard so far over the last couple of weeks has been, ”˜The Olympics are coming. This is going to be great. Oh, yeah, there’s going to be some protests.’ Then what we’ve heard was”¦”˜Oh, my gosh! Some of these protesters broke things. But look, there’s always respectable protesters. Let’s talk to them and see what they want to talk about.’ ”
Leier also pointed out that British Columbia has a “long tradition of people creating disruptions to draw attention to their causes”.
This includes the 1912 free-speech riots by workers protesting the ban on public assemblies. Leier puts in the same category the historic train trek from B.C. to Ottawa by workers who went on a general strike to demand better working conditions and wages in 1935.
Plus, the historian cited the 1938 occupation of the Vancouver post office by unemployed workers, an action that drew popular support.
Leier added that several movements, including the hippie phenomenon during the 1960s, were largely inspired by—and employed tactics associated with—anarchism, a term that he said should be distinguished from anarchy.
“Anarchy tends to mean lawlessness, no order,” Leier explained. “Anarchism, though, is a political ideology that says that people do not need an authoritarian state to live in harmony. Anarchists don’t say that the world should simply be chaotic. What they say is that human beings can actually live together without force. And we all have examples of that in our everyday lives. Car pools, for example. There are lots of things that we do without having somebody say, ”˜You will do it this way, and if you don’t, there will be penalties.’ ”
The Straight caught up with Eby, executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, during the 19th annual march for murdered and missing women on February 14 in the Downtown Eastside.
Eby was wearing the standard orange shirt issued to Olympic observers, who, he noted, were trained for free-speech events like that day’s march and the largely peaceful demonstration on the opening day of the Games on February 12.
Referring to that demonstration, Eby declared: “It was just a wonderful event, a lot of free speech and it was great, and then to see all that disappear the next day was very frustrating.”
With regard to the February 13 event dubbed by organizers the 2010 Heart Attack, Eby said: “I don’t see that there’s any place for those kinds of actions if we’re going to be encouraging free speech. If you want to speak your point of view in favour of or opposed to the Olympics, there should be space for that. You shouldn’t expect someone to put a chair through your front window.”
For Leier, the anarchist ideal is a time when people—not their leaders—decide for themselves what form of action they need to fight for their interests






In a democratic society that upholds the principles of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and a measured and lawful response to violations of laws and city ordinances, there are bound to be a variety of perspectives on every issue, and a wide variety of actions that different people consider legitimate and warranted. The chief challenge for members of a free and democratic society is to accept this diversity and try to listen to everyone, even those whose opinions or values you don't share. If there is a segment of society whose behavior is impacting you, at least take the time to go on the internet for a few minutes and find out what they are really about. Only through this kind of sympathetic tolerance and active listening can a free and democratic society retain its open and friendly character, because through the openness to varying viewpoints all people can be enriched by the experiences and perspectives of others, communicate meaningfully, and find accomodation for each other in a peaceful fashion.
Of course, we all are rightfully wary about actions which interfere with the rights of others, and this is a critical debate in society. The anarchists are not only sensitive to this issue - they have a superlatively high level of sensitivity to just this issue. As a result, anarchists are perhaps able to see past the charade of civility that corporations, governments, police, courts and military deliberately construct to justify their actions - actions which often dramatically infringe on the rights of people, from individuals to entire segments of society. It is exactly because of this heightened awareness to the crimes of governments, corporations and police that some anarchists occasionally choose to perform acts of minor property damage to symbolise their lack of respect for these institutions.
This rift between the anarchists' sensitivities to gross and frequently ignored institutional injustice and abuse on the one hand, and the neoliberal / neoconservative / peacenik's greater focus on finer niceties such as avoiding causing a social disturbance, minor property damage, or offending anyone's feelings, creates a tension between the two groups that I think can only be bridged by a greater effort on the part of the general populace to research a little on the internet into the thoughts and concerns of anarchists. Though this will probably not win alot of converts, the paranoia level and hysterical response to the anarchists' behavior may nevertheless be replaced by some calm understanding and faith that even the most radical group of protestors in Canada is not fundamentally hostile to the core principles that animate and unite Canadian civil society.
Anarchists just have a different slant on where the chief issues we are faced with as a society are, and on what the appropriate level of urgency should be to confront these issues. When any group feels as strongly as this group does that there is something strongly amiss in society, I think they deserve a few minutes of everyone's time to air their opinions and then some thoughful consideration afterwards, even if on the face of it their ideas seem absurd or off the wall.
Whatever your opinion of the validity of vandalism as political expression, I don't know if you can reasonably call breaking windows "extreme violence".
Exactly! I can't believe how often I'm hearing this referred to as 'that awful violence downtown' or some such. It's ridiculous. I'm not saying that breaking windows and stomping newspaper boxes is the best way to garner publicity for one's cause, but 1) It's not the worst thing you could do, and 2) People don't pay attention unless it involves someone getting hurt, killed or arrested.
So whatever, the Bay can afford it, and now more people are aware that not everyone is down with this event being held in their city. I don't have a problem with that.
Big deal that the Bay can afford to replace its broken windows...insurance will pay for it and with raise in their insurance premiums for having made a claim...will now pass on the increased cost to all of its customers. Do hear that sound? It's the sound of a $25 t-shirt going up another $3 because some idiot can't figure out how to 'use his words' like a freakin' grown-up.
We've lost a lot of the sympathy we did have; I don't care about The Bay or TD's windows, but I do care about a hurt cause. People pretend that there's a majority of us against the Olympics standing strong, but it's so many big words, I was proud to be one of few willing to stand up against this, but this is just embarrassing.
There wouldn't be all these articles and blogs in 'defense' of the Heart Attack if there wasn't such a nearly universal sentiment against it, from our side as much as the mainstream media.
What a pathetic, temper tantrum that turned into, still so disenfranchised. Maybe I'll go watch the Hockey Game.
Has no one realized that those who are being accused of arguing for violence (aka, anyone who defends, or does not condemn the actions of the black bloc) are actually arguing for economic destruction of privately owned property, not violence (windows don't feel pain), property owned by corporations that daily perpetrate violence & have a history of violence (sweatshops, colonialism, genocide).
Where as the those who the media (& Liberals) claim are against violence (aka anyone willing to condemn the breaking of windows) are actually in support of law enforcement, & supported the cops who very violently subdued the "protesters" including football tackling a person to a pole and repeatedly hitting a 17 year old girl with a baton. The cops were out there with live ammunition, the LRAD and an entire arsenal of weaponry. There is video of the cops very violently attacking protesters who in most cases are not even defending themselves or resisting.
Seriously, everyone can claim all they want that they don't support violence, but unless you are doing anything to stop real violence (including police violence) then we all condone violence, the only real question is which kinds of violence do you support and which kinds do you not?
If people want to condemn the anarchists because they used so called violence they need to also condemn the police use of force as well.
And if people did nothing, took no action, what right do they have to critisize those people who took action for using tactics that they don't agree with?
Assuming that one agrees with that view, can I throw a chair through her window and get the same free treatment ? Alternatively, if private secutiry guards destroy a street person's tent and belongings, is that not violent ? Not by her standards.
What does she call assualts on bystanders ? What does she have to say about a male black bloc activist pushing two women to the ground, or hitting one with a chair he was trying to throw through a window ?
My biggest problem with Saturday's acting out by the small minority of middle class miscreant university students, likely on their parent's dime, is that if anyone on the right used their tactics, they would be condemning them outright. The ironic part is that real political anarchists would likely have nothing to do with them.
Finally, Alicia, time for your political philosophy to mature - you were self righteous and holier than thou back in the school day, and you havent changed since, and still havent made any posittive changs for the people you say you speak for. Get over yourself.
The fact that you are having to argue in on-line forums about what is or is not the text book definition of violence is moot at this point.
Do you and PETA share the same play book?
Those who spend too much time watching TV, watching violent movies and spectator sports, playing violent video games, and reading the corporate news are being systematically conditioned by the military / police state apparatus to participate in and condone an ever more violent culture, with a monopoly on violence being exercised by the state and its agencies. To justify this program, the state propaganda apparatus, which includes the corporate media, repeats over and over (a technique right out of the Nazi playbook), that we are under constant threat of attack from a variety of unreasoning enemies dedicated to our total destruction and enslavement. If this seems unreasonable to you, just think about it a bit, and study how the corporate / state military / police apparatus typically engineers fascism.
I'm sorry, trend? Humans are inherently violent. While I agree that America is becoming more violent as their republic continues to retrograde into empire, I think it's inane to suggest that people are somehow non-violent by nature, and engineered to be violent by the state.
I think an area we may be closer to agreement on is the monopoly on violence by the state. As a libertarian, I believe 18th century America had it right when they had a citizen militia, rather than a military and giving citizens their second amendment right to keep and bear arms. Self-defence, deadly if necessary, should be a universally recognized human right.
However, if protesters choose to act violent, then cops should have full rights to use reasonable acts of violence to subdue the violence of these individuals. Citizens should also have the non-restricted rights to engage in vigilante justice to stop these kinds of acts. It's completely inconsistent to say anarchist protesters should be allowed to cause damage to property and harass bystanders on the one hand, but non-protesters should simply sit down and take it on the other.
The crimes of corporations are tragic, and there should be harsh criminal reprisals for these white-collar thugs, but the very reason they get away with their crimes is, fundamentally, because they are "above the law". By turning around and saying it is justified for anarchists to also be above the law because of the crimes of distant CEOs and federal governments, is, conceptually, perpetuating the problem.
No one should be above the law and there should be consistent consequences for stepping outside its bounds, rich or poor. All that said, I would change many laws (aka abolish unnecessary laws). Many laws are fundamentally anti-freedom in their nature, such as our drug laws.
Either way though, it should be strictly illegal to damage another person's private property, whether they are rich or poor.
But the writer makes his worst error in attempting to apologize for the actions of a masked violent mob when he states without any sense of irony that what Anarchists say is "people do not need an authoritarian state to live in harmony. human beings can actually live together without force ..."
Dear Professor: Lawless thugs on the streets smashing windows, assaulting pedestrians and spray-painting isn't harmony ... and we do need a state to protect us from people committing that kind of ridiculous violence.
Who accomplished more in BC: Direct Action, or the ad-hoc group fighting the 'Clayoquot Land Use Decision'?
Pages