Police have to remember that democracies permit peaceful dissent

Vancouver Sun

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

The failure of the Quebec provincial police to issue a plausible explanation for the actions of three undercover officers during the recent leaders' summit in Montebello suggests they have not learned the lessons of more than three decades of similar incidents in Canada.

The officers wore the unofficial uniform of the most violent of protesters, the so-called "Black bloq," who seem to delight in provoking police and destroying property. In addition to wearing black clothing and masks covering their faces, at least one of the officers carried a large rock, plainly visible on a videotape released by union officials who were initially taken in by their subterfuge and tried to keep them out of their own peaceful protest.

The Surete du Quebec, which at first denied the men were police officers, later issued a statement that said the men had a mandate to spot and identify violent demonstrators to keep things from getting out of hand.

That would have been a useful role. Indeed, police regularly videotape demonstrations to gather evidence. In this case, the Surete, along with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, also had several hundred riot police in place, so it's not at all clear how three undercover officers would have made much difference.

Without a better explanation from police, we are left with two equally unpleasant scenarios. One is that this was a case of extreme incompetence -- did they really think hefty middle-aged men wearing police boots would not be recognized for who they were by the young weedy anarchists they appear to have been trying to infiltrate?

And why would they push their way into a crowd of peaceful demonstrators who were clearly not interested in a violent confrontation with police?

The other is that a quarter century after the McDonald Commission inquiry into RCMP wrongdoing in Quebec, they still can't differentiate between legitimate protests by citizens who also deserve the respect and protection of police and those bent on inciting riots.

Although the officers involved were from the Surete, because this was a joint operation with the RCMP, we also need to know whether Mounties knew of their presence among the protesters and what they were told about why the undercover officers were there.

We need to know whether the tactics the RCMP is preparing in advance of the 2010 Oiympics will incorporate the lessons they should have learned from this and earlier incidents, including the violent confrontation between the RCMP and demonstrators at the 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec City.

A subsequent report by an RCMP public complaints commission said the police used "oppressive," "unjustified" and "excessive force" against protesters in violation of both the Criminal Code and the Charter of Rights.

That followed the report by Ted Hughes into RCMP tactics at the 1997 Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation meeting in Vancouver that found police had abused their powers in curtailing demonstrations.

There is little doubt police will be provoked both before and during the Olympics by demonstrators who see the Games as means of getting their own issues into the media spotlight.

Some of those demonstrators have criminal intent and must be dealt with appropriately. But with the eyes of the world watching, police will also have to show that they have learned how to allow the legitimate dissent our democracy requires while still providing the security needed for a safe and successful event.