Nonviolent Dissent in Connection with the 2002 G8 in Calgary and Kananaskis Alberta June 26 – 27, 2002

Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association

October, 2011

Nonviolent Dissent in Connection with the 2002 G8 in Calgary and Kananaskis, Alberta, June 26 – 27, 2002

Trudy Govier, University of Lethbridge Lowell Ayers, University of Lethbridge October, 2011

Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association [email protected] www.rmcla.ca

ISBN 978-0-9877929-0-7

Nonviolent Dissent in Connection with the 2002 G8 in Calgary and Kananaskis, Alberta, June 26 – 27, 2002

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Demonstrations in conjunction with the G8 meetings in 2002 in the Calgary- Kananaskis area were lively, interesting, and, above all, nonviolent. There were no incidents of property or personal violence and only three arrests for minor misdemeanours. The orderly and friendly nature of these protest-related events stands out in contrast to others, including events at the 2010 G20 in Toronto.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 fear about possible terrorist attacks was such that the G8 meetings were moved from Ottawa to the Calgary area. Planners had a common goal in seeking to avoid the violent confrontations between police and protesters that had occurred in Quebec in 2001.

To what factors can their success be attributed?

Attitudes matter. Police recognized that it is legitimate to express dissent from policy, and planned with civil society groups, whose representatives had similar goals in wishing to avoid violence while allowing for expressions of dissent and concern. Planners worked to allow for communication while preventing violent confrontations.

A variety of protest events occurred, including a bike rally, concerts, a ‘die-in’, a knitting event, and several marches. Amnesty International and the Calgary Civil Liberties Association organized independent observers, to serve as impartial witnesses should there be any negative confrontations between demonstrators and police. There were none. In fact, some police were on bicycles; some offered water to protesters.

To provide for further public participation, lectures and panel discussions were held at the University of Calgary, organized under the title ‘G6B’. That label was devised to refer to the six billion people of the earth who were not leaders of any G8 country.

Dissenting views were expressed and explored, sometimes in depth. And yet there was no violence. These features make the 2002 G8 meetings of considerable current interest. Considering the events in retrospect, using a preliminary report from 2002 and other related material, advice can be extracted for planning of future meetings. Recommended are the following:

• Advance planning by polic e and government officials with representatives of civil society groups

• Understanding by police that nonviolent dissent is legitimate and crucially important to the functioning and development of democratic society

• Understanding by protesters and media that violence is not necessary to effectively communicate a message of dissent

• Organization of associated events providing for reflective consideration of evidence and arguments about substantive issues

• Presence of impartial observers, accredited observers be ing most desirable

• Absence of a fence or wall that might provoke protesters

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 1

Table of Contents ...... 3

1. INTRODUCTION...... 4

2. ATTITUDES PRIOR TO THE KANANASKIS G8 ...... 5

3. EVENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE G8 MEETINGS ...... 7 The G6B People’s Summit ...... 7 Bike Rally ...... 8 Family March ...... 8 Demonstration at the Gap ...... 9 Stampede March (also referred to as ‘Show-down at the Hoedown’) ...... 9 Snake March ...... 10 Die-In ...... 11 Riley Park Event ...... 11 Revolutionary Knitting Circle ...... 12 Car Caravan to Kananaskis ...... 12 Second Caravan to Kananaskis ...... 13 Concert Event ...... 13

4. REFLECTIONS ON TWO SENSES OF ‘CONFRONTATION’...... 13

5. CONCEPTIONS OF PROTEST AND PROTESTERS...... 16

6. NEGOTIATIONS...... 17

7. THE ROLE OF MEDIA: AN UNDERLYING DILEMMA ...... 18

8. RESPONSES TO THE MEDIA DILEMMA...... 19

9. THE SUCCESS OF NONVIOLENCE: CONTRIBUTORY CAUSES...... 20 Relatively Remote Location and Relatively Small Number of Protesters ...... 20 Post September 11 Context ...... 21 Walls and Fences May be Provocative ...... 22 Attitudes and Behaviour of Police ...... 22 Planning with Police and Civil Society Groups ...... 23 Dissent and Democracy ...... 23 Presence of Impartial Observers ...... 24 Events Featuring Substantive Content ...... 24 Attitudes of Demonstrators and Attitudes Toward Them ...... 25

10. CONCLUSION...... 25

1. INTRODUCTION

In June, 2002 the G8 met in the Kananaskis area, near Calgary, Alberta, Canada. These meetings were accompanied by protests of a nonviolent and predominantly good-humoured nature. There were only three arrests. This report is prepared with a special interest in the nonviolent protest and related events that accompanied the meetings. The major goal of this report is to reflect on aspects of planning that could potentially be reproduced on future occasions, with the goals of facilitating expression of dissent while at the same time avoiding violent behaviour and violations of civil liberties.

Two civil society groups in Calgary, Amnesty International and the Calgary Civil Liberties Association, organized observers to attend events associated with the meetings of the Kananaskis G8. Their underlying idea was that in the case of any unpleasant incidents involving demonstrators and police, observers could provide reliable information and their presence could serve to deter bad behaviour in either quarter. The observers were carefully selected community members. They were not, however, officially accredited by police.

Activists and academics organized extensive meetings accompanying the G8, calling them meetings of the G6B (the six billion). Held at the University of Calgary, G6B events included panels, discussions, speaker presentations, films, and debates. They attracted a considerable crowd, and some participation by foreign experts and members of Canada’s Liberal government. Media attention was given to these events.

In the immediate aftermath of the G8 meetings, Amnesty International Calgary and the Calgary Civil Liberties Association received observers’ reports on related events. During the summer of 2002 a committee did some work compiling that information with a view to writing a report on the meetings and related events. Regrettably that report was never completed. Its preliminary results are referred to here as the Preliminary Summary. A report on the G6B is available, and will be referred to here as the G6B-2002 Report .1

Subsequently, and especially in the wake of the G20 meetings in Toronto in the spring of 2010, the nonviolent character of the protests accompanying the Kananaskis G8- 2002 became a matter of considerable interest. An October, 2010 meeting, sponsored by the Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership (Calgary) and the Rocky Mountain Civil Liberties Association (RMCLA), included talks by Nathalie Des Rosiers 2 and Micheal Vonn 3. In discussion, it was decided that

1 The G6B-2002 Report is available by request from RMCLA. 2 Nathalie Des Rosiers is General Counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and author of a report on the horrifyingly tumultuous 2010 G20 meetings. 4

the loss of information about the 2002 Kananaskis G8 was particularly unfortunate. It was resolved that efforts should be made to construct a report on those meetings, using the Preliminary G8-2002 Summary and the G6B-2002 Report as information sources. Further information was sought from Superintendent Barry Clark (Calgary Police Service), in a meeting with members of the RMCLA (Calgary, October 1, 2010). Barry Clark was a member of the G8 security planning committee in 2002 and has since been involved in the planning of major security for subsequent events, including the Toronto G20 in 2010. Notes on this meeting are referred to here as Notes on meeting with Clark .

Reflections here are based on the Preliminary G8-2002 summary, the G6B- 2002 report, and the Draft Notes, with some supplementation supplied by interviews with several persons who were active as observers and prospective authors of the report in 2002.

2. ATTITUDES PRIOR TO THE KANANASKIS G8

Attitudes are significant because of the way they affect the interpretation of events and actions, especially with regard to the key factors of trust on the one hand and suspicion on the other. Fearful and suspicious people are likely to interpret even rather innocent gestures as hostile and threatening, providing a basis for dispositions to aggressive behaviour and a self-fulfilling dynamic of hostile encounters.

In advance of the G8-2002 meetings, there were both helpful and less helpful aspects of government and civil society attitudes. It is crucial to recall that early planning for these meetings was done in the immediate aftermath of the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. At the time, there was considerable anxiety that if G8 leaders were to meet in a single location, their meeting would provide a prime target for terrorists. “in the Calgary-Kananaskis area there was no history of In fact, there was some expectation that tension between the police the G8 meetings would be cancelled; however, it and activist groups; nor did was felt that to do so would be giving in to there seem to be a burning terrorist threats. local issue that could spark an angry protest.” It was concerns about such attacks that led to the re-location, on relatively short notice, of the G8 meetings from Ottawa to the Kananaskis region west of Calgary. It was believed that holding the talks in a

3 Micheal Vonn is Policy Director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA). 5

‘region’, as distinct from ‘the centre’ – and, in particular, in a relatively isolated location within that region – would lessen risks associated with the meetings.

As planning proceeded in the fall of 2001, in a context of generalized fear and anxiety, there was a general attitude of cooperation and determination to keep things calm and safe. Police and civil society groups communicated and consulted regarding their concerns and plans. Barry Clark recalled that in the Calgary- Kananaskis area there was no history of tension between the police and activist groups; nor did there seem to be a burning local issue that could spark an angry protest.

Quebec 2001. Image taken from http://photosc.msspro.com/pic/qphotos.htm In addition to concerns arising from 9/11, there was a desire to avoid hostile and sometimes injurious interactions between protesters and police. Violence had characterized previous G8 meetings in Genoa (one demonstrator was killed in 2001), Quebec (2001; the largest ever volume of chemical agents employed against a North American public was used against globalization and free trade protesters in a Summit of the Americas), and Seattle (in 1999, in the wake of an ongoing serious labour dispute, there was near-chaos in anti- “Although some local activists globalization protests). were mildly insulted to hear that government and police Despite the sense on the part of planners anticipated little government and planners that Kananaskis ‘action’ in the Calgary area, was a relatively isolated place in a quiet region they were reassured to hear where there would not likely be many that police acknowledged that thousands of protesters, there were attitudes peaceful protest should be of fear and concern about demonstrations, and allowed to occur and that part these were expressed in many quarters prior of their job was to ensure its to the meetings. safety and feasibility.” In the fall of 2001, when it became known that the G8 meetings had been re-located to the Calgary-Kananaskis area, Calgary police met with members of civil society groups in Calgary to discuss planning for the meetings, including plans to allow peaceful protest. At these meetings there were representatives of government, police, and local non- 6

governmental organizations. 4 Although some local activists were mildly insulted to hear that government and police planners anticipated little ‘action’ in the Calgary area, they were reassured to hear that police acknowledged that peaceful protest should be allowed to occur and that part of their job was to ensure its safety and feasibility. These attitudes on the part of police were, and remain, crucial. They are fully consistent with the civil rights of Canadians.

Immediately prior to the G8 meetings, there was an atmosphere of heightened anxiety in Calgary and surrounding areas: media reports of possible attacks and the likelihood of violence on the part of anarchist activists preceded the meetings. 5 The Calgary Herald had carried a story (June 9, 2002) describing increased border security and stating that “anarchists” and others caught at the border with “tools of civil disobedience” would be refused entry into Alberta. Another story ( Calgary Herald June 9, 2002) described “tools of civil disobedience” as including gas masks, pepper spray, Molotov cocktails, handcuff, spray paints, and ski masks. Schoolchildren were told that demonstrators might attack them. For those who had read such reports, the calm of local Calgary neighbourhoods and nearby vicinities such as Springbank and Cochrane immediately before the meetings were to begin was a surprising anti-climax.

On the positive side, contributing to the successful and nonviolent character of the Kananaskis G8 was the determination to have events facilitating dissent while avoiding violence. On the negative side were fear and anxiety about what might happen, given post 9/11 alarms and the violent character of protest events in Seattle, Genoa, and Quebec. It is fair to say that this combination of attitudes encouraged cooperative and constructive planning for the Kananaskis G8.

3. EVENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE G8 MEETINGS

The G6B People’s Summit

When: Friday, June 21st to Tuesday, June 25. Where: University of Calgary. Why: To function as a forum for the voices of NGOs, Civil Societies, as well as ordinary citizens.

The G6B People’s Summit took place at the University of Calgary just prior to the G8 Summit. There were a number of events, speakers, as well as opportunity for questions from the audience and panel discussion. Various topics were presented

4 Trudy Govier, co-author of the present report, attended several such meetings as a representative of Project Ploughshares Calgary. 5 A no-fly zone around Kananaskis was enforced by CF18 fighter planes. The Preliminary Report cites a CBC website to this effect. 7

and discussed, including trade and economy, labour, the criminalization of dissent, education, health, social issues, politics, environment, human security, First Nations issues, and the problems of Africa. Following the summit, recommendations were presented to Susan Whelan, the Minister of International Affairs, and Bill Graham, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. An estimated 1,400 people attended all or some of the events throughout the G6B. No protests occurred throughout these events.

Bike Rally

When: Saturday, June 22nd. Where: Eau Claire Market to Kensington area, Calgary. Why: To advocate ratification of the Kyoto Accord, the reduction of greenhouse gases, and cycling as an alternate and environmentally friendly mode of transport.

Approximately 200-300 activists on bikes (while others were on foot) began demonstrating at the Eau Claire Market in central Calgary. A portion of the group wore green shirts, had green painted faces, and wore helmets with eye designs on them. The rally moved to the Kensington area, and then crossed over the 10 th street bridge, returning downtown. From here the rally proceeded to 9 th avenue southwest and then back to the Kensington area, where the rally ended.

There was a substantial police presence at this rally. Police escorted cyclists on their route, and at the end of the rally several police cruisers, motorcycles, and a HAWK helicopter were seen. Observers noted that at times there was some confusion over whether the police were blocking a route, or facilitating the passage of the riders through city traffic. Nonetheless, these occasional ambiguities did not cause any problems. The bike rally was peaceful, cheerful, and non-aggressive; there were no negative interactions observed between police and riders.

Family March

When: Sunday, June 23 th , 1:00 p.m. until about 2:15 p.m. Where: Eau Claire Market to Olympic Plaza. Why : To allow the public to voice their views in a friendly and family oriented setting.

Permits for this event were obtained from the City of Calgary. Observers estimated that approximately 1000 to 2000 people participated in the march. The march was described as “friendly”, “optimistic” and “festive”. People of all ages attended the family march. Also present were groups from civil society, several G8 observers, and members of the media.

Police were observed on bicycles, horseback, and on foot. A police vehicle and truck, transit supervisor van, as well as a tow truck, followed up at the back of the march. The streets into and leaving the downtown area were blocked off by

police, allowing the marchers to clear the intersections. The event was peaceful and non-confrontational.

Demonstration at the Gap

When: Tuesday, June 25 th , noon hour. Where: Gap retail clothing store, at the Toronto Dominion Centre downtown Calgary. Why: To protest environmental damage and sweatshop conditions among workers at Gap factories in the developing world. Image taken from http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0625-07.htm About 100 protesters and 25 police gathered outside the Gap retail clothing store at the Toronto Dominion Centre throughout the noon hour. The protesters’ basic slogan was “I’d rather go naked than wear clothes from the Gap.” Some demonstrators removed clothing as a way of making their point. A large circle of protesters formed around the big white metal trees on Stephen Avenue Mall where several speeches and songs were heard. After this, approximately 30-40 protesters began to take off their clothing, with a few going all the way to nudity.

There were many bystanders at this event (perhaps as many as 1000 according to the Preliminary Report). The police were present. They allowed the speeches, songs, and disrobing to go on without interruption. The protesters seemed highly organized and there was no violence or damage.

Stampede March (also referred to as ‘Show-down at the Hoedown’)

When: Tuesday, June 25 th, approx. 7:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. Where: Downtown Calgary; Stampede Grounds. Why: To protest G8 press and other participants.

This march was planned to protest at the Hoot and Holler event which was a party put on by the city of Calgary at the Roundup Centre. This party was meant to showcase the city’s culture and attractions and was an exclusive event for those members of the media with accreditation to the G8 Media Centre. Protesters met at Memorial Park where some initial speeches took place for about 15 minutes.

An estimated 1000 people attended this march. Observers described the mood as somewhat confrontational, despite the fact that speakers urged nonviolence. Both police and media were present. Some protesters had gas masks, goggles, hockey sticks, and scarves covering their faces – apparently in anticipation of the use of tear gas by police.

Protesters first marched to the TransAlta Building along 12 th Avenue southwest, and then towards the Roundup Centre at the Stampede Grounds. There was a temporary blockade at the Stampede Main Gate with about two dozen police officers behind it. A few protesters (one or two) began shaking the blockade, but other protesters dissuaded them, placing themselves physically between the agitators and the fence. This happened again and was resolved in the same way. It appears that those intervening in this way did so on their own initiative rather than as a result of any prior planning to anticipate that role. Some of the crowd attended a street party at 15 th Avenue and Macleod Trail which was going on at the same time. By 9:30 p.m. protesters started to leave and by 11:00 p.m. they were fully dispersed.

The Stampede March was non-violent and involved only minimal and brief negative interactions as some demonstrators shook the blockade fence at the Stampede Main Gate.

Snake March

When: Wednesday, June 26 th , approx. 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. Where: Downtown Calgary. Why: To disrupt morning traffic to the downtown core, with oil and gas companies being the targets.

This march involved approximately 300-400 protesters and an announcement was made that the event was to be a ‘yellow march,’ meaning that protesters would stop and delay traffic, but not do any damage. The march began in the open field beside Fort Calgary and traveled to the Harry Hays Building, the Telus building, and then the Sun Life Plaza. The march continued to the Shell building, the Shaw building, and the old City Hall.

Police were present: the police helicopter was seen as well as police blocking traffic behind the march. Two protesters shouted at the police in front of Starbucks on 4 th street. The police did not respond. Some protesters were observed wearing black anarchy gear, and some had gas masks and vinegar bandanas. Several protesters played soccer in the intersections during the march.

After the march some protesters started to voice their opinions about McDonald’s, as they stood in front of an outlet. (McDonald’s outlets had been

subjected to property violence at several earlier anti-globalization protests in other cities.) Some bike police formed a semi-circle around the doorway to the restaurant. Approximately one dozen protesters linked arms and tried to push their way past the bike police, while surrounding protesters tried to dissuade them. Following this, a squad of officers came from within McDonald’s and formed two rows behind the bike police. The police pushed everyone back; there was some pushing done to the protesters. The agitators backed off and the situation ended without any arrests or injuries.

Die-In

When: Wednesday, June 26 th , around noon. Where: The Olympic Plaza, downtown Calgary. Why: The precise message of this event was not made clear; presumably the point was that policies on environment and nuclear weapons threatened life on this planet. Image taken from http://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/convergence-activism Some gravestones were put up on the risers around the Plaza, and the event started with a bagpipe player. People were supposed to “die” and lie still for about half an hour. There were onlookers, media, and protesters watching the demonstrators lying on the cement in intense heat. At 12:15 p.m. there was a helicopter circling over the event. Protesters did not attempt to block traffic at this event, and there was no violence nor were there any negative interactions.

Riley Park Event

When: Wednesday, June 26 th at approximately 1:30 p.m. Where: Riley Park Why: For social justice speakers and musicians to express themselves.

This event had a rather large crowd in attendance (approx. 500) and involved some speeches on issues of social justice, as well as performances by musicians. Food was served and no police were noted in attendance. No problems or negative interactions were observed.

Revolutionary Knitting Circle

When: Wednesday, June 26 th , 3:30-5:00 p.m. Where: Bankers Hall. Why: It is unclear, with the passage of time, what the precise message of this event was. One may speculate that it was a kind of expression that ordinary people were putting up with unwise governmental policies.

Approximately 50 people were sitting on benches and the ground knitting; they produced a large banner saying “Revolution”. Signs on cardboard were spread out for people to answer such questions as “Who are We?” and “Why do We Knit?”. No police presence was observed, although there were a few security guards who filmed the event.

Car Caravan to Kananaskis

When: Wednesday, June 26 th , late afternoon. Where: Highway 40, and intersection of Highway 1 and Highway 40. Why: To attempt to get to Kananaskis where the G8 meetings were occurring.

This was a large planned event, and as such potentially confrontational, given that protesters would not be allowed access to Kananaskis Village where leaders were assembled. At the intersection of Highway 1 and Highway 40 some media and observers were parked.

A large caravan of over 100 cars full of protesters came during the late afternoon, with some cars displaying anti-G8 signs. There were delays as police checked drivers’ licenses and car registrations. Protesters were allowed to proceed along Highway 40 towards Kananaskis, but were later stopped at checkpoints along the way. It was quite clear that they would not be permitted to proceed further towards the meetings. After negotiations protesters were allowed to make speeches and engage in other activities. Some activists were singing and dancing. A police sniper was observed on a hill near these activities.

Observers noted tension among the activists as they wanted to make their point that they should have access to the G8 meetings in order to voice their opinions. Some protesters discussed whether or not they should try to be arrested. After deliberations about the legalities of the matter, given the general situation, the strong presence of police, and the intense summer heat, the protesters decided to return to Calgary. It was decided that there were not enough protesters wanting to stay, nor were there enough media or bystanders for a further demonstration to make significant impact.

Second Caravan to Kananaskis

When: Thursday, June 27 th , approx. 4:00 p.m. Where: Junction of Highway 1 and Highway 40; ramp and area toward Highway 40. Why: To attempt to get to Kananaskis where the G8 meetings were occurring.

Approximately 40 protesters returned to head towards Kananaskis on June 27 th ; however, they were not allowed to travel down Highway 40 at all on this day. There was heavy police security on the ramp toward Highway 40, and they warned protesters that anyone who tried to block traffic would be arrested. One protester, Kelly Klassen, was arrested for obstruction when he did not move his van as directed by police. Protesters continued to display a large banner which read “So, so, so, solidarity,” “This is what democracy looks like, G8’s what hypocrisy looks like,” and “the people united will never be defeated.”

Several protesters taunted police—one called them robots. There were deliberations about what the protesters should do next in this situation; after several hours a group began to march towards Kananaskis (at approximately 6:20 p.m.). By 6:50 p.m. the activists had decided to walk back to their cars and return to Calgary. It was observed that police offered rides to some people.

Despite the attitudes of some protesters who were more confrontational, this event was completely non-violent and involved only one arrest.

Concert Event

When: Thursday, June 27 th , early evening. Where: Uptown Theatre in downtown Calgary. Why: For speakers and musicians to express themselves.

This event featured musicians and speakers; the audience was very positive. Photos and video were taken. The event was reported as being quite hot and rumours seemed to be spreading about the snipers in the Kananaskis area.

4. REFLECTIONS ON TWO SENSES OF ‘CONFRONTATION’

In the Preliminary G8-2002 Summary there are repeated references to the possibility of confrontation, the avoidance of confrontation, and confrontational or non-confrontational aspects of attitudes and events.

The resolve to keep things peaceful and avoid damage to persons and property resulted in a concern to avoid confrontation between police and protesters. That concern is reflected in the Preliminary Summary. A Family March is described as non-confrontational; a ‘Show-down at the Hoedown’ is described as

13 somewhat confrontational, with possible property violence at a MacDonald’s outlet. A car caravan towards Kananaskis on June 26 is described as an event that could have been confrontational but was not, while the movement of vehicles to the junction of Highways #1 and #40 on June 27 is described as potentially a highly confrontational event. Given general concern about preventing personal or property violence and avoiding the need for arrest, this emphasis in the Preliminary Report is understandable. It does, however, point to a need to clarify what is meant by ‘confrontation’ and ‘confrontational.’

These references use the term ‘confrontational’ in a negative sense, in which what is confrontational is hostile and provocative, as such posing some risk of interactions damaging to persons or property. G8 leaders were isolated from protesters, as was intended when the G8 meeting was re-located to the Kananaskis area. Hence there was very little risk of their coming to harm as a result of protests. Rather, the issue was one of negative confrontations between police and protesters – and, sometimes, business owners along protest routes.

In understanding protest and dissent, it is crucial to recall that there is a more positive meaning to the terms ‘confront’ and ‘confrontation.’ It is often necessary to confront someone with unwelcome facts and issues, in the sense of making a person acknowledge that there are questions and problems.

We might, in this way, speak of confronting a lazy student with the fact that her marks will not be adequate for her to achieve her future goals, or of confronting a cabinet minister with evidence that a member of his staff has relations with gang members.

In this sense, a confrontation is almost certain to be unwelcome to the person given bad news. Yet, while negative and unwelcome, “Confrontation in the such confrontation need not be provocative or negative sense, associated hostile. with hostile and destructive behaviour, is undesirable Nor is confrontation in this sense and to be prevented. Yet necessarily a negative thing; on the contrary, it confrontation in the can be highly valuable and has, historically, been positive sense is something an essential element of achieving social else and is essential for progress in many areas. We should not assume democracy itself. ” that confrontation in this sense is something to be suppressed or avoided.

These negative and positive interpretations of ‘confrontation’ and related terms may be blurred together, with serious misunderstandings as a result. These interpretations are crucial as regards protest and civil dissent. Confrontation in the negative sense, associated with hostile and destructive behaviour, is undesirable and to be “Stating one’s case, when one prevented. dissents from established policy and practice, does Yet confrontation in the positive sense is require confrontation in the something else and is essential for democracy positive sense, but does not itself. It is integral to questioning and criticism require confrontation in the and thus to the sound development of negative sense. Planning governance and policy. Protesters are persons meetings for the 2002 G8 who dissent from existing policies, believed by showed police to be fully them to be counter-productive and contrary to accepting of the need for the public good. Protesters must be able civil protest and express their views in public and convey their confrontation in the positive concerns. That will require confrontation in the sense .” positive sense.

Activists and protesters are likely to understand themselves as having an obligation to put their case to leaders and the public at large. They seek to confront an audience with challenges, some of which may be unwelcome. Leaders, representing an establishment and kind of status quo, will not wish to hear alarming stories of such things as nuclear accidents, melting glaciers, ill-paid workers, a growing divide between rich and poor, toxins, corruption and such issues. And yet activists will believe that leaders should be confronted with such things and should be forced to acknowledge that these are realities not to be whitewashed or sanitized by bland press releases, photo ops, and the like. In this positive sense, confrontation is the core of activism.

Stating one’s case, when one dissents from established policy and practice, does require confrontation in the positive sense, but does not require confrontation in the negative sense. Planning meetings for the 2002 G8 showed police to be fully accepting of the need for civil protest and confrontation in the positive sense.

Activists will seek to confront leaders and the public at large with facts and interpretations that their intended audience would rather avoid. There is, then, a kind of role dynamic in which dissenters seek confrontation while leaders and officials will generally try to avoid it. In this sense, confrontation must be acknowledged to be necessary and desirable in a democratic state and society. It has frequently been a stimulus to changes in attitude and essential reforms in policy and practice.

Nonviolent dissent requires a clear understanding that confrontation in the positive sense is a public good and does not require confrontation in the negative sense, which is not a public good. 15

5. CONCEPTIONS OF PROTEST AND PROTESTERS

Labels make a difference and the labels applied to actual and prospective protesters provide a case in point. Those who protest the policies and actions of governments include people of varying ages, concerns, and occupational backgrounds. Descriptions by government, police, and media do not always allow for that fact. In the case of the Toronto G20 (2010) there was repeated emphasis in advance publicity on activists who were likely to cause trouble and would therefore need to be controlled by vast numbers of police. The implication was that activists were protesting simply for the sake of protesting, and were likely to be significantly affiliated with irresponsible ‘anarchists’ prone to property violence, and having no significant message to convey. It was presumed that these activists were dangerous people simply out there to cause trouble.

The terms ‘activist’ and ‘protester’ (and to an even greater extent ‘anarchist’) may be loosely used in a highly pejorative sense so as to suggest that such persons have no substantive claims or critique as regards to public policy. 6 This usage is open to criticism as both inaccurate and dangerous. It is inaccurate because activists include many persons with substantive knowledge about the issues that are subject to protest. Indeed, such knowledge is for many the very basis of their energetic concern. And it is dangerous, due to polarizing tendencies, contributing to a sense that dissenters are dangerous ‘others’, worrisome troublemakers who threaten the security of ‘us’.

In 2002, the G6B meetings (so-called as they were deemed to be meetings of the six billion people on the earth) at the “What protesters are University of Calgary provided ample evidence almost certain to favour that many concerned persons were are changes in the knowledgeable and eager to participate in established order. discussion and informed debates. Some of these Negative labelling should persons were also participants of events be avoided... ” constituting the demonstrations and protests described here.

Those civil society meetings were enriched by the participation by some experts and government personnel, such as Mr. Bill Graham, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Canada. They were given some media coverage and helped to dispel any notion that protesters were all of one type and were (almost by definition) irresponsible anarchists out to make trouble.

6 We suspect that anarchists, so-called, are convenient scapegoats. The tendency to scapegoat so-called anarchists was manifest in police interviews in the aftermath of the Stanley Cup finals in Vancouver in the spring of 2011. 16

In political theory, an anarchist is a person who believes that individuals should control themselves and their own affairs in the absence of any government. Various reasons are put forward to defend philosophical anarchism in this sense; these reasons include the corruptibility of government and the desired autonomy of individuals. It seems unlikely that protesters and demonstrators are anarchists in the sense of having a considered political philosophy along these lines.

The term “anarchy” is also used to refer to chaos and lack of order. Protesters might be claimed to favour lack of order and be anarchistic in that sense. In any large crowd of demonstrators there are likely to be some hooligans and persons intent on committing illegal acts. However, no one should presume that all demonstrators share criminal intentions. To do so amounts to inaccurate stereotyping, given that people can protest for a wide variety of reasons. With regard to such topics as nuclear arms control and environmental agreements, many protesters favour more governance rather than less and in this sense are obviously not anarchists. What protesters are almost certain to favour are changes in the established order. Negative labelling should be avoided. These labels do not accurately describe protestors nor what legitimate protestors are actually wanting. 6. NEGOTIATIONS

In several places in the Preliminary Summary, we find mention of negotiations between the activist groups and the police. It has been noted that there were attempts by police at communicating with demonstrator groups before the summit. The Draft Notes detailing the meeting with Superintendant Barry Clark of the Calgary Police Service state that the police service prepared for the G8 by working months in advance with NGOs, businesses and the public. They met and worked with protest groups and NGOs to learn about their plans and communicate their philosophy: that they were there to facilitate peaceful protest. Clark noted that these early efforts in communication allowed the police to find out what the groups were trying to accomplish and better predict the protests that were coming.

During the second car caravan to Kananaskis it was observed that a police liaison person was engaged in discussion with a group of activists and observers. At the same event there was a French liaison person communicating with police and acting as a translator for those activists who spoke French. These discussions (referred to as negotiations in the Preliminary Report) seem to have been unplanned. We have not been able to determine whether there were designated negotiating persons on behalf of the demonstrators; that seems unlikely. The fact that such negotiations did occur, and went smoothly, is highly positive.

7. THE ROLE OF MEDIA: AN UNDERLYING DILEMMA

The media during events involving political demonstrations are very influential and their role can pose dilemmas. On the one hand, protesters desire the attention of the media so that their messages may be delivered to a larger and broader population. On the other hand, it is often the case that the attention of the media is captured primarily by the excitement of striking and provocative events. This excitement is readily generated by violence, destruction, or negatively confrontational interactions. For this reason the desire for attention can influence protesters to resort to violence. “The presence of the media There is also a risk of staging events for the may have influenced a media—pseudo events—which take place only in number of protesters to order to get media coverage. Ideally one would seek to escalate the suppose that things happen and then media situation to confrontation decide whether, and how, to report on them. But in the negative sense of that in reality some things are planned and conducted term. The majority of the with precisely media in mind, so ‘events’ are not crowd was focused on really independent of media. These comments staying non-violent, which apply to both establishment events (consider, for seemed to dissuade those example, photo ops in connection with meetings few .” such as the G8) and protest events.

It has been noted that the media tend to have little patience for attending full conferences such as the G6B. Rather, media personnel are more likely to show up for key briefings such as the one with the Canadian Ministers at the end of the G6B, and for protests where there seems to be potential for the most ‘action’ – often in a negative sense. Obvious dilemmas arise for those planning nonviolent protests while at the same time seeking media attention for them.

The media have a considerable impact on the actions of protest groups. There was no violence at the meetings accompanying the G8 Kananaskis Summit, even though on some occasions there was considerable potential for confrontation. During the Stampede March some protesters were shaking the fence and shouted “Confrontation is what the state and the media want. Now is the time to give it to them.” The presence of the media may have influenced a number of protesters to seek to escalate the situation to confrontation in the negative sense of that term. The majority of the crowd was focused on staying non-violent, which seemed to dissuade those few .

Occasionally there was some confusion as to who was part of the media and who was not: some protesters were interviewing people and taking pictures, suggesting they were part of the media.

In their reports, several observers commented that the media, at times, behaved worse than the police and the protesters. For example, at the Snake March, a reporter was observed holding his camera within inches of people’s faces, despite loud requests made by three people to stop. Meanwhile, at the Stampede March media representatives were seen climbing on things in attempts to get good pictures of the crowd. Several photographers were observed standing on the bed of a privately owned truck. One observer commented that, in his view, the media was the only group of people that continually attempted to provoke negative confrontation. At the Second Car Caravan (June 27 th ) one photographer even jokingly suggested to a police officer that he would donate twenty dollars to the charity of his choice if the policeman would raise his baton at a protester so that the photographer could get a picture and then go back to his air-conditioned hotel room. 7

Contrary to such attitudes and their potential to stimulate negative confrontation, there were exceptions at the G8. At the Second Car Caravan (June 27 th ) one observer commented to a reporter from A Channel that there was not much to cover during the week; however, the reporter disputed the assumption that only violence would be interesting by stating that she would much rather cover events like this than violent confrontational ones.

During the Car Caravan (June 26 th ) the lack of media actually functioned to dissuade confrontation and violence. Some “The use of humour and protesters discussed trying to get arrested and imagination provided others wanted to continue down the road means of getting attention towards Kananaskis. However, there seemed to and conveying a message in be nervousness about any effort to do so, a non-threatening way. ” because there was no media present and few, if any, impartial observers. Once again the media (or lack thereof) was a factor that influenced the protesters’ actions as they eventually decided to return to Calgary. 8. RESPONSES TO THE MEDIA DILEMMA

One noteworthy aspect of the demonstrations surrounding and during the G8 is the alternative methods that groups used to convey their messages. While violence and highly confrontational interactions will garner attention, they are by no means the only ways to do so.

There were various instances of protesters using interesting and effective methods to communicate their message. For example, during the Bike Rally, protesters dressed in green shirts, and wore green face paint and decorative bike helmets (with ‘bug eyes’ painted on them) in order to advocate ratification of the

7 Preliminary Report. 19

Kyoto Accord, as well as the reduction of greenhouse gases. Perhaps even more excitement occurred at the Demonstration at the Gap on June 25 th . Here activists remained peaceful and resorted to removing their clothing as a way of boycotting the Gap clothing company. Bystanders certainly found the protest interesting— some estimate that approximately 1000 onlookers gathered during the noon hour.

Another example of an alternative to violence was the Die-In on June 26 th . Protesters gathered at Olympic Plaza and remained still on the pavement. Onlookers, media, and other protesters watched these people as they symbolically died for about half an hour. Later that day there was a Revolutionary Knitting Circle where a large banner saying “Revolution” was knitted. These knitters made use of an alternate and comical method to spread their message when they spread out signs which read “Who Are We?” and “Why do We Knit?”

The use of humour and imagination provided means of getting attention and conveying a message in a non-threatening way. Observers reported that at the Family March there was a George W. Bush puppet with a sign that read, “I am important and bigger than you think.” At the Stampede March people carried a big trampoline and said, “this is not a weapon.” When the event ended the last of the crowd departed as they chanted “the people are thirsty… we’re going to get some beer.” Some demonstrators in the Snake March were blowing bubbles and saying, “the G8 causes troubles, we just blow bubbles.” Some protesters made appeals to police to strive for justice as they voiced “no justice, no donuts.”

The challenge is to plan and organize events that are of interest without being characterized by violence or negative confrontation. The many events associated with the 2002 G8 provide evidence that organizers were well able to meet this challenge. Humour is a highly positive aspect, in this connection. 9. THE SUCCESS OF NONVIOLENCE: CONTRIBUTORY CAUSES

When considering the events prior and during the 2002 G8 Summit, especially when contrasted with other events, such as the 2010 G20 in Toronto, the immediate question is: why were these events so remarkably peaceful? There are undoubtedly various contributory causes to the success of the Kananaskis G8. Some of these factors can and ought to be repeated, while others can be repeated but arguably should not be. Other contributory causes cannot be repeated at all.

Relatively Remote Location and Relatively Small Number of Protesters

It is very probable that the remoteness of the Kananaskis area and the distance of the Calgary region from large eastern cities such as Montreal and Toronto played a considerable role in keeping the 2002 G8 peaceful. Location is a very sensitive matter and will affect persons who may wish to attend and

demonstrate their concerns. For example, a person in Montreal might not be able to afford to come to Calgary, while he or she could afford to go to Toronto. Numbers of demonstrators at the 2002 G8 were estimated at 3000 – 5000 protesters, while in Quebec there were an estimated 50,000 and in Genoa estimates were as high as 250,000.

Secondly, Kananaskis is relatively isolated, and more difficult for activists to access, even granting that they begin from Calgary. This situation contrasts highly with the 2010 G20 meetings in Toronto which allowed many activists to travel in from surrounding communities with relative ease.

Another feature of the Calgary/Kananaskis region is that it is, in general, politically more conservative. This likely limited the number of people who sought to express their dissent, as well as the intensity of violent and confrontational attitudes that some members of the population may have felt regarding the meetings.

While the remoteness and isolation of the 2002 G8 may have contributed to the peacefulness of the meetings, it is not clear that selecting a similar location for future meetings is a good idea. Although factors that reduce the number of demonstrators might be favourable for the government, police, and political leaders, such a strategy is not desirable from a democratic point of view. As was discussed earlier, the ability for the public to peacefully express dissent is a key feature of democracy, and should not be discouraged and avoided by holding meetings in isolated regions. Such efforts to ‘tuck away’ these important world meetings may offend those who wish to express dissent, causing further tension and potential for negative confrontation that would have otherwise not existed.

On the other hand, holding meetings such as the G8 in a densely populated metropolitan area can have its disadvantages too, as was seen at the Toronto G20 and others. It seems that striking a balance between low and high population is favourable when considering where to host such meetings as the G8.

Post September 11 Context

The Preliminary G8-2002 Summary states that one likely contributory cause of non-violence throughout the meetings was the post September 11 th context. There was an attitude of fear in advance, and for that reason the public understood the importance of keeping things peaceful. The widespread fear that any sort of political opposition would be seen as ‘terrorist’ was a factor that played a role in keeping the demonstrations non-violent. This particular attitude of fear before the 2002 G8 is something that cannot be repeated, and fearful attitudes hopefully will not be repeated. The post 9/11 context may have influenced the mood of the public and helped keep things running smoothly; however, such a context of fear is hardly desirable to repeat, even it were possible.

Walls and Fences May be Provocative

When comparing this G8 summit to other world meetings we note that there are other aspects that should be avoided if one is interested in keeping the peace.

For example, constructing a protective fence/wall, like the one present in Quebec in 2001 “…constructing a protective is likely to be provocative and is a potential fence/wall, like the one stimulus for negative confrontation. present in Quebec in 2001 is likely to be provocative (It was noted above that at the Stampede March it and is a potential stimulus was a fence that protesters began to shake; that for negative confrontation. ” event could have turned violent).

Quebec 2001. Image taken from http://photosc.msspro.com/pic/qphotos.htm Such protective barriers should be constructed with care, and with their potential to provoke demonstrators in mind.

Similarly, the use of items such as tear gas are likely to cause similar, if not even more, hostility amongst activists and thus should be avoided whenever possible.

Attitudes and Behaviour of Police

Masses of police dressed in riot gear or brandishing other implements to counter civil disobedience can also be very provocative to activists. In order to lessen the “Calgary police opted for a negative confrontational atmosphere, public-friendly attitude and prudence should be used when it comes to attire throughout the G8, these groups of armed policemen. While it with officers riding bikes, may be important to have such forces on handing out water, and standby, they need not be visible or in full- allowing small bylaw formation at the front lines of the infractions to be demonstrators. Calgary police opted for a overlooked, as noted in the public-friendly attitude and attire throughout Preliminary Report. ”

the G8, with officers riding bikes, handing out water, and allowing small bylaw infractions to be overlooked, as noted in the Preliminary Report. These factors contrast with the image of the ‘police army’ and likely reduced the potential for violent confrontation.

Planning with Police and Civil Society Groups

There are other factors that contributed to the successful non-violence throughout the G8 that are worth mentioning, and worth duplicating. Among these are the communications between the police service and civil society groups prior to the meetings. These consultations allow both “The attitude of the Calgary parties to be better prepared in what to expect Police Service was one that from the other. Police will be able to predict sought to allow dissent to when and where protests will occur, as well as be expressed, so long as it the nature of the demonstrations. Activists will was not violent. ” understand the police involvement at such events as well as the attitude that police will have during the events. In the case of the 2002 G8, the police made clear that they wanted to facilitate peaceful dissent.

Negotiations beforehand are certainly valuable for keeping the peace and should be repeated at future world meetings where political leaders are present and political protest is likely to occur. Governments should make clear their own time frame with regard to policy planning so that civil society groups who wish to communicate their own detailed policy recommendations will have time to do that.

Dissent and Democracy

As was just mentioned, police attitudes constitute another important factor that can have an enormous impact on the success of demonstrations.

If police think it is their job to stop all protest, then things will turn for the worse rather quickly. It may be recalled that there was considerable anger, in 2002, at many of the policies of the Bush administration. That anger could have been channelled into violence. It was not.

The attitude of the Calgary Police Service was one that sought to allow dissent to be expressed, so long as it was not violent. This attitude is readily perceived by activists, especially when minor bylaws are overlooked and only cases of property or personal violence are stopped.

When officers involved understand and accept the importance of peaceful dissent, animosity between demonstrators and police is lessened in that the two groups need not be polarized against each other. Further assisting positive relationships between the police and activists are friendly gestures by the police,

23 such as offering people rides or handing out water on hot days. Such attitudes by the police are to be commended and should be repeated wherever feasible.

Presence of Impartial Observers

The presence of impartial observers at the G8 events is believed to have contributed to the success of peaceful demonstrations. These clearly identifiable individuals can increase the confidence of demonstrators in that if unlawful actions are taken against them there will be credible “...stigmatizing activists and witnesses of those actions. As such, their protesters in advance of presence will deter police from treating activists events, before anything less than fairly and lawfully. actually happens, should be avoided. ” Similarly, they can deter activists from provocative and violent behaviour—people will be less likely to engage in such behaviour if they know they are being witnessed by an impartial third party.

Furthermore, observers offer a point of view distinct from demonstrators, police, government, and media. Any reports they produce can be of value to future planning of similar events. Indeed, observers’ reports formed the basis for the Preliminary Summary, used to construct this report.

For these reasons we think that the use of impartial observers merits exploration and should be repeated at other political demonstrations. Accrediting observers is desirable. Recognizing these persons, and their role, will help the police and the public understand their presence and contribute to their potential deterrence of hostile or violent interactions.

Events Featuring Substantive Content

The G6B is recognized as a contributing cause that kept the events at the G8 peaceful. This event allowed academics and the public to present, learn, and discuss various topics. This form of critical discussion and dissent contrasts with street protest in that it tackles the issues from a substantive and analytical point of view and allows for the careful construction of reasoned arguments. The existence of such a forum allowed concerns to be expressed directly to several government ministers. Acting as an alternate outlet of dissent, the G6B meetings are likely to have had an impact on the attitudes of a number of activists as they offered a peaceful and rational means to advocate change.

Attitudes of Demonstrators and Attitudes Toward Them

Finally, it has been noted that the attitude among demonstrators was an important factor that contributed to the success of the G8. On various instances the activists’ mentality that they wanted to keep things peaceful helped deter some of the more aggressive protesters (such as at the Stampede March). This attitude is important; however, it may be difficult to actively replicate at future demonstrations.

Prior planning with government and police, and understanding the importance of civil dissent are all-important in generating such an attitude. Likewise, stigmatizing activists and protesters in advance of events, before anything actually happens, should be avoided. Ultimately, if protesters are determined to remain peaceful at demonstrations, then the event will likely be so. 10. CONCLUSION

IN SUMMARY, the following aspects of these events merit repeating and are reasonably regarded as contributing to successful nonviolent protest:

• Planning with civil society groups

• Understanding that peaceful dissent is crucial to democracy itself

• Having an understanding and positive attitude to demonstrators and their policy concerns

• Having impartial observers

• Organizing supplementary events of a substantive nature.