Statement and Appeal for Solidarity by the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP)
as the Trials of Dozens of Activists Begin.
On June 15, 2000, OCAP
organized a March on the Ontario Legislature to challenge the crisis of
homelessness. The depth and scale of this have been well documented. By the time
our March took place, some twenty six homeless people were known to have died on
the streets of central Toronto that year and, of these, fifteen had been active
in the work of our organization.
The March had three demands on Government policy. We called for the restoration
of the 21.6% cut to welfare rates in Ontario that had filled the homeless
shelters, the abolition of the ‘Tenant Protection Act’ that had caused a huge
upsurge in evictions and the scrapping of the ‘Safe Streets Act’ that
criminalized those who panhandle and squeegee. While our immediate
focus was on homelessness, we knew a serious challenge to the Tory Government
would require a broad-based alliance of forces and we sought, with our March, to
help awaken such a movement. For this reason, we planned an action that went
beyond the usual token protest seen at Queen’s Park. We selected a six-person
delegation affected by homelessness and demanded that it be allowed to address
the Legislature. With this approach, our goal was to force the Tories to deal seriously with us and to demonstrate that it was
possible to ‘fight to win’ with a disruptive and defiant mobilization.
Of course, the granting of our demand to address the Legislature was unlikely.
Still, we calculated that a serious attempt to be heard on that day would build
momentum for our movement and might even create the basis for some alternative
mark of respect. We did calculate that a meeting with senior Government figures
or an opportunity to address the Tory Caucus might be offered as a reluctant response to the grievances of their victims.
We set the stage for the day with a number of letters to leading Government
figures and several public statements driving home the fact that our March would be very serious in nature. By June 15, we had not had any favourable
response so we proceeded with our mobilization. The general idea for the day’s action was based on two highly successful actions we had organized in
Ottawa the year before. We had taken mass delegations of homeless people to that City to demand, in the first instance, a meeting with the Prime
Minister and, in the second, to express our outrage at the lack of Federal support for housing programs. By demanding entry to the Parliament and
militantly pressing forward in the face of intransigent authority, we had placed a lack of governmental response to homelessness on the national
agenda. Our actions had, moreover, contributed considerably to the Liberals’ decision to put $753 million into shelter programs for the homeless. The
tactic we had employed on both occasions was to move forward and put
pressure on the lines of police sent to block us. We were able to advance
our goals effectively without uncontrolled confrontation.
Passivity Over
On June 15, we sought to move forward in a fashion that would, even if we were denied entry to the Legislature, show that passivity in the face of
attack was over. We might even obtain some negotiated concession that would render the day a tactical success. We were prepared to press for entry even
in the face of substantial measures to turn us back. We were ready to remove barricades and, anticipating a strong force of riot cops, ensured a supply
of protective equipment to counteract the disabling effects of pepper spray and police batons. We did not, however, seek to overwhelm their lines or
force a mass entry into the Buildings. To have done this, in our view, would
have invited a panicked and extreme reaction that we had good reason to
avoid. Instead, we centred our efforts around supporting the demand that our delegation be allowed to enter.
We should make clear that we were perfectly aware of the kind of political regime we were confronting and of the fact that the Toronto Police Service
was headed by an ultra authoritarian who would not take kindly to our tactics. We knew that the Tories had been ready to use force in stifling
dissent at Queen’s Park in 1995, again during the OPSEU strike of the following year and, most infamously of all, in the outrage at Ipperwash that
led to the murder of Dudley George. Still, we believed that, while they might vigorously contain us, an uncontrolled situation would be extremely
unlikely unless they moved to clear the Legislative grounds and this seemed a tactic of such utter recklessness that we discounted it.
So, on the early afternoon of June 15, a crowd of between 1,500 and 2,000 people began its March on Queen’s Park When we got to the Legislature, our
delegation moved up and sought to address someone in authority. The police Operational Commander, Supt. Mahar came forward to deal with us. No
political figure or person from the Legislative staff was on hand. Mahar
simply warned us that, if we crossed a first line of two sets of barricades, we would be charged with trespass or related offences. The delegation
returned to the main crowd and asked for assistance in pressing the demand for entry. A portion of the crowd moved up to the barricades and a blatantly
weak police line. Even the riot clad Public Safety Unit did not have shields. Given that a large crowd had come with the openly stated intention of demanding entry for its representatives, this was more than curious.
As we reached the barricades, nothing was done to bolster the police lines.
This, coupled with the fact that the barricades were not secured effectively, led to an initial sense that the lines were, indeed, being
overrun. The police rapidly retreated to their second set of barricades and, for a short while, things were quite tense as a section of the crowd sought to press its perceived advantage. Some sporadic projectile throwing had by
now broken out and the police had begun to use their batons freely. However, this initial phase rapidly gave way to a definite lull in the situation. The
expected ‘stand off’ was now emerging. At this point, however, the mounted police unit started to move into the crowd and the riot cops began to make repeated charges. The crowd was pushed back to the original perimeter but
the police showed no readiness to disengage. As they moved forward relentlessly to clear the entire grounds and, as police horses continuously
rode into the crowd, a much more substantial counter attack developed. Even, after roughly an hour, when the whole gathering had been pushed across to the other side of Queen’s Park Circle, the police attacks did not stop and
their drive to ‘quell disorder’ continued to inflame things. Even when the
grounds had been cleared and OCAP organizers sought to disengage the crowd and move back to the staging point, repeated baton attacks made it
enormously difficult to leave the scene. Back in Allan Gardens, the police, fixated entirely on inflicting retribution, continued to make wild charges
and heavy-handed arrests that spilled out onto the surrounding streets. Dispersal was carried out under the most difficult circumstances.
A few conclusions can be drawn as to the intentions and conduct of the
political and police decision makers. First of all, the Government that had created the pressing grievances underlaying the March on Queen’s Park had no
interest in any reasonable solution. The demand to address the Legislature was handed to bureaucrats who dismissed it as outside the norms of
parliamentary tradition. No serious alternative was advanced or even
explored. On the day itself, only a police official was there to curtly rebuff our delegation. No one ready or able to engage in good faith
negotiation was there to deal with us. The same Premier who wanted the
‘Indians out of the park’ at Ipperwash, was more than happy to see the grievances of homeless people dealt with as a police matter.
Provocation
Next, the reaction of the authorities on June 15 raises the strongest suspicions of deliberate provocation. An intention to ensure a sharp
confrontation that day would be entirely in line with the political outlook of the Government and the inclinations of the Toronto Police. The evidence
is strongly suggestive of just such a course. Following the preliminary
refusal to deal in good faith and, despite supposed police intelligence suggesting a possible confrontation, we were met with a hopelessly
inadequate line of police. After the initial move forward, relative calm was restored yet a ruthless drive to clear the grounds followed. That someone in
high places wanted confrontation is the most plausible explanation for all
this. The only alternative is to accept a level of police incompetence that boggles the mind. It would be necessary to believe they ignored all
information as to the crowd’s size and intentions that day and then, having been sadly unprepared, massively overreacted to create a police riot. The
Toronto Police Service is a ponderous bureaucracy but we doubt even they
could be that inept.
If, indeed, a plan for deliberate provocation was in place that day, it backfired on them in two interrelated ways. First of all, they did not take
into account the seriousness of our preparations. We had worked to build the
March over a long period and pulled out a crowd of homeless people and
supporters that was several times larger than they’d expected. Secondly,
when they, nevertheless, recklessly swept the grounds of Queen’s Park, they
seriously misjudged how such behaviour would be responded to. This was a crowd made up of some of the most hard hit victims of the Tories. We did not
seek the kind of confrontation that took place on June 15 but we make no apologies for pressing our just demands as we did or for the fact that
people under such brutal attack defended themselves.
There are two legacies to June 15 that we would like to address. First of all, it was a watershed in terms of resistance to the Tory Regime and the
broader ‘global’ agenda it personifies. We were vilified in the media and persecuted by the police but we won massively increased support and respect. The momentum created by this action led to a campaign of economic disruption against the Tories in the autumn of 2001. This included the hugely
successful snake march of 2,500 people in Toronto’s financial district on
October 16 which moved through the business centre of the City for several hours causing massive disruption, while 1,500 cops from seven police forces
were unable to prevent it. The call to ‘fight to win’ that came out of June
15 has been taken up by others and the movement to challenge the Tories has
gone forward.
Trials Underway
OCAP now, however, faces a new challenge that flows from its action at
Queen’s Park. As this is written, the trials of those charged in connection with June 15 are about to begin and will run throughout the year. Those who
defended themselves and others on that day are facing multiple charges and,
potentially in some cases, the serious prospect of imprisonment. Three OCAP
activists, Stefan Pilipa, John Clarke and Gaetan Heroux, have been
identified by the State as ‘leaders’ of the action and have been charged with ‘Participating in a Riot’ and ‘Counselling to Participate in a Riot’. A
lengthy show trial before a jury is planned for later in the year. Originally, the Crown imposed bail conditions on those accused banning
association with any member of OCAP and forbidding attendance at
demonstrations. These were overturned but they highlight the fact that this
whole legal attack has been about breaking an organization that has spearheaded resistance to the Tories.
All of those facing trial must be defended and then supported in the event
of conviction. They acted in the face of orchestrated attack by the police
and are the victims of political persecution. The real criminals are those
who let homeless people die on the streets. The trial of the three so-called
‘leaders’, however, places OCAP itself on trial and has chilling
implications for working class and popular movements in general. It is
blatantly obvious that these men were selected for prosecution based on a
police decision to single them out as playing a leading role in an
organization hated by Chief Julian Fantino and his Tory friends. It is far from clear just what level of activity a person must engage in to face the
charge of ‘participating in a riot’ and it can be laid, as it was in this
case, without any warning to disperse being given by the authorities. What
angry or militant picket line or demonstration can now be safe from such antiquated and reactionary sections of the Criminal Code in the increasingly
regressive political climate we live in? When it comes to the charge of ‘counselling’, we are dealing, essentially, with the notion that anyone who
calls for militant action is immediately guilty of a serious crime. The implications go well beyond the present attack on OCAP.
OCAP will need a great deal of help form the broader movement it is part of. We urgently need cash donations to cover tens of thousands of dollars in
legal costs. We need a mobilization of supporters for the trials. From the end of January to May, courtroom 121 in the Old City Hall Courthouse will
see a steady stream of June 15 trials and we will need friendly faces and
solidarity. Public meetings and defence committees are needed to expose and
defeat the attack on us. Open letters to the Attorney General from progressive organizations should make clear the widespread outrage that is
felt over the laying of these charges and the fact that they are being pursued with lavish public resources. If people are, nonetheless, convicted
and face jail time, we will need donations to keep money in their ‘canteens’
in the jails and various forms of support for those they leave behind on the outside. We need a demonstration of the principle that ‘an injury to one is
an injury to all’.
Finally, whatever the immediate consequences we face, we are proud of the
stand we took on June 15, 2000 and the contribution we have made to building real resistance in this Province and beyond. Such a response is needed in
the face of the attacks we face from governments like the one that sits in Queen’s Park. We will mount a legal and a political struggle against the
charges they have laid against us but we make clear that no measures of
intimidation will stop us from moving forward. Come to our support in the days ahead but, more importantly still, build the struggle and fight to win!
For more information, contact OCAP at (416) 925-6939 or at ocap@tao.ca.
Letters of solidarity or of protest to the Attorney General will be put on
our website at www.ocap.ca
|
