THE APEC INCIDENT: PROTECTING FOREIGN VISITORS

Introduction

Take one university campus with limited access for vehicles and a student body that includes many politically aware, energetic young people. Add a conference of world leaders discussing sensitive and complex issues relating to trade and economics in a context of unprecedented global economic restructuring. Put a police force and a security fence in between the two, and the result is what happened at the Asia Pacific Economic Conference (APEC) at the University of British Columbia (UBC) on November 25, 1997.

The RCMP knew the UBC site could present security problems. They also became increasingly concerned about some of the security measures being implemented in Canada by the staff of visiting dignitaries, most notably the armed bodyguards of President Suharto of Indonesia. As a result, the force with which the RCMP subsequently carried out its security duties on November 25, 1997, became headline news. Many regarded the officers' actions as unwarranted. Almost 50 protestors were arrested, and scores of people were pepper-sprayed, including a television cameraman. The protestors say the force was excessive; the RCMP say it was necessary because of the difficulty in securing the site and the need to protect the protestors themselves from possible violence at the hands of the armed Indonesian bodyguards who had hinted they would shoot anyone who got too close to Suharto.

The protestors admit some of their actions were illegal. They also admit that their intended goal was arrest. But a report tabled by a special RCMP task force in the spring of 1998 recommended that criminal charges be laid against police officers involved—it stated that excessive force and false arrest had been used—as well as protestors. Members of neither group were charged, however, because the Crown decided there was lack of sufficient evidence to

win a conviction.

In order to determine where the truth lies in this dramatic situation, a public inquiry was convened. The RCMP Public Complaints Commission started hearings on October 5, 1998, in Vancouver. It is now estimated that the anticipated six-week inquiry will go on for at least six months. And at least 120 witnesses will be heard from. Since these hearings began, more allegations have come forth. There is evidence that the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) was directly involved in security measures and instructed the RCMP in how to control the protestors. There is evidence that the PMO promised Suharto certain security conditions to appease him and guarantee his attendance at the APEC conference. Solicitor-General Andy Scott was alleged to have prejudged the outcome of the inquiry by telling a seatmate on a commercial aircraft the RCMP would "take the fall" for the scandal. The PMO also alleged bias on the part of CBC reporter Terry Milewski as a result of his communication with one of the protestors, whom the PMO alleged Mr. Milewski advised as to a legal course of action to pursue. Mr. Milewski has stated that this allegation is flatly untrue. Requests to provide government funding to the protestors for their legal fees have been denied. And finally, allegations that chair Gerald Morin prejudged the outcome of the inquiry by publicly saying before the hearings had even begun that the RCMP had used excessive force shut down the inquiry October 23. Adding further controversy to the debate, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's offhand responses to the incident have angered many critics.

Protestors allege their democratic constitutional right to freedom of expression was denied. The irony of course is that President Suharto was ousted from power by protestors in his own country not six months after the APEC conference. And there is further irony in that the 1998 APEC is scheduled to meet in mid-November in Kuala Lumpur, the site of increasing political upheaval. Recent protestors in that country were dispersed by riot police using tear gas and a water cannon. It may be that the APEC members will soon no longer be able to isolate their economic conferences from political events within the member countries.

Introduction Neutrality Two Points of View Colonial Power Freedom of the Press In the Heat of the Moment Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

Indicates material appropriate or adaptable for younger viewers.

Comprehensive News in Review Study Modules

Using both the print and non-print material from various issues of News in Review, teachers and students can create comprehensive, thematic modules that are excellent for research purposes, independent assignments, and small group study. We recommend the stories indicated below for the universal issues they represent and for the archival and historic material they contain.

"On Strike!" October 1991 "Farmers Revolt," November 1991 "Governments Cut Back," September 1993 "Ontario Turns Right: Harris Hits Hard," September 1995 "Health Care Cuts: Operating With Less," February 1996 "A Day of Protest: Shutting Down Toronto," December 1996 "The New Toronto: Is Bigger Better?" December 1997 "The Dionne Settlement: Justice At Last," April 1998

Other Related Videos Available from CBC Learning Does Your Resource Collection Include These CBC Videos?

Boys will Be Boys: Sexual Harassment in Schools The Come-Back Kids Edna Beatty: Journey of a Native Student Forever Young Keewatin Teachers Let Freedom Ring Residential Schools School Colours Take a Chance and Learn Teen Sex: The Chastity Crusade Year-Round School Youth and Hate

THE APEC INCIDENT: PROTECTING FOREIGN VISITORS

Neutrality

A news event such as this one can create a great deal of emotional public debate, accusations, and recriminations. The fact that the story involves, among other issues, a confrontation between young people and authorities, between government and media sources, between those who feel obliged to protest injustice and those who are charged with maintaining public order and security, can create vicarious feelings of anger, depending on which side one identifies with most. In examining emotionally charged situations such as these, social historians, journalists, and concerned citizens strive to maintain neutrality and to focus initially on the facts before judging the events.

Initial Impressions As you view this News in Review story, jot down answers to the following questions:

1. What is APEC? 2. What were the APEC protestors protesting? 3. Who is Suharto and why was his attendance at APEC controversial? 4. What are the principal components, elements, and events that make up this news story?

Active Listening During a second viewing of the video, listen carefully to comments by protestors or others shown in the video. Choose what you feel is the most significant statement made by one of these individuals. Explain why you think it is the most significant. To what extent do you think the original reasons for protesting at the APEC summit have been lost in the ensuing news coverage and public debate?

To what extent might these reasons have been enhanced?

Critical Viewing Watch the video again. This time, be prepared to suggest the extent to which, in your opinion, the visuals accurately depict the events that occurred. Consider, for example, the choice of images used in the editing of this piece, the juxtaposition or sequence of the visuals, what was seen and what may not have been seen, and the actions and individuals depicted.

Objective Reasoning In your judgment, what is the general impression of the APEC incident that the public has received through media sources? Why is the question of balance also an issue in this story? How have the issues of bias and prejudice added elements to this story? Have all parties been represented fairly? The APEC inquiry was set up to investigate exactly what happened. In confrontational situations there are often two clearly defined sides. Is this true in this news story? What do all these secondary issues have to do with the validity of this inquiry?

In the Final Analysis Review points raised in the class discussion questions as well as your own thoughts. Identify one issue that is the most significant to you personally in this story. Explain your choice.

Introduction Neutrality Two Points of View Colonial Power Freedom of the Press In the Heat of the Moment Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

Indicates material appropriate or adaptable for younger viewers.

THE APEC INCIDENT: PROTECTING FOREIGN VISITORS

Two Points of View

Holding a summit of world leaders involves an immense amount of preparation. The RCMP, the Prime Minister's Office, and the APEC protestors were involved in a variety of pre-activities in order to ensure that their respective aims for November 25, 1997, were achieved. Below you will find two timelines. Examine each carefully and, as you do so, highlight what you feel are critical events or details that should be examined in testimony before the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. Then proceed to the questions that follow.

The RCMP and the PMO Prepare for the APEC Conference July 18, 1997 The Canadian ambassador to Indonesia sends a memo to Foreign Affairs in Ottawa, informing the ministry that he has been told by Indonesian officials that "posters displayed in Ottawa by the East Timor Alert Network were �very insulting to us.'"

August 25, 1997 The Jakarta embassy issues a memo stating that the Indonesians were still concerned about security at the APEC conference. September 3, 1997 External Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy sends a letter to the Indonesian foreign affairs minister, stating that he has expressed the Indonesians' security concerns to Prime Minister Chrétien.

September 19, 1997 A memo from the Privy Council Office to the Prime Minister's Office is issued, which states: "There is a growing possibility that President Suharto may not come to the APEC leaders' meeting in Vancouver because of a desire to avoid embarrassment at the hands of the East Timor protestors."

September 19, 1997 A memo is issued from the Jakarta embassy, in which the Indonesian official expresses the belief that "many Indonesians' heads would roll," including the official's own, if the visit of President Suharto to Canada were not handled appropriately.

September 19, 1997 APEC organizer Robert Vanderloo issues a memo to his staff that says: "PMO had expressed concerns about the security perimeter at UBC not so much from a security point of view, but to avoid embarrassments to APEC leaders. ACCO and the RCMP are looking at that issue. . . . We have to find a balance that meets both concerns (we do not wish student demonstrations and efforts by the government to suppress the freedom of expression to become a major media story)."

October 9, 1997 The Canadian ambassador to Indonesia sends another message to Ottawa (Some names are blanked out.): "I believe that [blank] argued for a delayed decision in order to build pressure on us. . . . For his part, [blank] may have been recommending a no-show because he would not get the absolute guarantees he wanted from the RCMP."

October 29, 1997 Handwritten notes from the Privy Council Office read: "Do what we can to prevent embarrassment. PM will want to be personally involved."

November 25, 1997 Forty-nine protestors are arrested at the APEC conference. RCMP officers use pepper spray on the protestors.

The Protestors Prepare for the APEC Conference September 22, 1997 Protests kick off at the Goddess of Democracy statue outside the Student Union Building. Two protestors are arrested for painting the words "APEC-Free Zone" around the statue.

October 31, 1997 Three protestors are arrested at the residence of UBC president Martha Piper for chalking graffiti on the residence's atrium. The residence will be the site of a luncheon for the APEC leaders following the meeting at the Museum of Anthropology on November 25.

November 7, 1997 Between 30 and 50 protestors gather outside the residence of UBC president Martha Piper. A security guard is injured when protestor Jaggi Singh shouts in his ear using a megaphone.

November 19, 1997 Protestors put up a tent city on the grounds of the Museum of Anthropology, the site of the APEC leaders' meeting. They chalk graffiti on the museum, and rocks in the garden are rearranged to point at the museum with a sign that reads "Apeckerheads." Another tent city, consisting of 80 tents, is set up outside the Student Union Building.

November 22, 1997 Four protestors are arrested at the site of the tent city after the federal government takes control of the site in preparation for the conference. Two of these are arrested again the following day for returning to the camp.

November 24, 1997 Jaggi Singh is arrested on a warrant for charges in the November 7 incident at the home of UBC president Martha Piper. Between 200 and 300 protestors march on the police detachment. Singh is later released. In the evening, one protestor is arrested and others are pepper-sprayed as someone tries to place a flag on a flagpole situated inside the security perimeter erected by the RCMP. Later on, three more protestors, including Jaggi Singh on his second arrest of the day, are arrested trying to walk to the Museum of Anthropology. Five more protestors are arrested at the flagpole for refusing to leave the security zone.

November 25, 1997, 8:30 a.m. Craig Jones, executive member of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, is arrested in front of his dormitory, situated along the Chancellor Boulevard motorcade route. His signs, consisting of the words "Free Speech," Democracy," and "Human Rights" displayed on coat racks, are taken down by police. November 25, 1997, 9:00 a.m. The East Timor Action Network protests along the Chancellor Boulevard motorcade route. The RCMP arrest 18 protestors and two Indonesian security guards in camouflage uniforms who disobey police orders to stay away from the protestors. More than 3000 protestors march from the Goddess of Democracy statue to the law faculty building protest area, a small designated protest area outside the security perimeter. However, trees have been planted in such a way that the APEC leaders cannot see the protestors.

November 25, 1997, noon The RCMP pepper-spray protestors who are tearing down the security fence. The police form a second security line with bicycles and spray second and third lines of protestors.

November 25, 1997, 3:00 p.m. The RCMP pepper-spray protestors blocking the Chancellor Boulevard motorcade route.

November 25, 1997, 4:00 p.m. Protesters block the Marine Drive motorcade route in a sit-down demonstration. The RCMP pepper-spray the protestors nine seconds after asking them to move. Media representatives, including a television cameraman, are also pepper-sprayed. A total of 48 protestors are arrested during various altercations on November 25.

December 1, 1997 Six protestors are arrested for spray-painting around the flagpole in a post-APEC protest.

Right Or Wrong? Were laws broken during the APEC incident? Were democratic rights denied? Did the student protestors at the APEC summit engage in civil disobedience?

Sometimes known as "passive resistance," civil disobedience is a refusal based on one's principles to obey the law, for example by refusing to pay taxes. Civil disobedience is a reaction to a law that protestors consider unjust. It is a method of protest aimed at changing laws or to gain concessions from authorities. Civil disobedience has been used by civil rights leaders around the world, most notably by leaders such as Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Opposing clear-cut logging in Clayquot Sound in British Columbia, 859 people were arrested, tried, and convicted for defying a court injunction prohibiting blockades. This was the largest act of civil disobedience in Canadian history. The right of dissent, however, which is a basic democratic freedom, does not mean the right to disobey the law, but it does permit the right to oppose the passage of a law or promote the repeal or amendment of a law. In his book When Freedoms Collide Alan Borovoy states, "In democratic societies, the people are supposed to be the ultimate authority." The right of freedom of speech, of course, is also fundamental to a democratic society. In your opinion, which issues are relevant to the APEC story? Is it a question of civil disobedience, the right to dissent, the right to free speech, or something else? Did civil rights collide with the responsibility of an elected government to maintain public order and security through its law enforcement authorities? How far do you feel citizens of a democracy should be able to go in expressing their opinions on important issues?

Introduction Neutrality Two Points of View Colonial Power Freedom of the Press In the Heat of the Moment Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

Indicates material appropriate or adaptable for younger viewers.

THE APEC INCIDENT: PROTECTING FOREIGN VISITORS

Colonial Power

The objections on the part of the APEC protesters were primarily in response to the presence in Canada of the Indonesian President Suharto, a dictator well-known for his human-rights abuses and a leader who was overthrown by his own people several months after the APEC summit in Vancouver. As you read the following summary of Indonesia and how Suharto came to power, consider why protesters felt that Suharto's presence at the APEC summit was significant for them to organize protests as they did.

Indonesia Today Indonesia is a major exporter of petroleum, gas, tin, rubber, and plywood. However, the bulk of its people make their living from subsistence agriculture, fishing, and forestry. Only 12 per cent of Indonesia is farmland; however, approximately 55 per cent of workers are involved in agriculture. Most manufacturing is concentrated on exports. Following near-bankruptcy in the 1960s, Indonesia's pro-Western authoritarian regime worked to change the imbalances that were a legacy of its colonial economy. Many enterprises were nationalized during the 1960s, and since 1964 almost all trade is conducted by state-owned trading companies. Its biggest trading partners are the United States, Japan, and Singapore. Indonesia Yesterday Beginning in the 17th century, the Dutch, the Portuguese, and the English competed with each other for Indonesia's trade. Eventually, the Dutch won out, and their trading control evolved into political control. Their demand that Indonesians grow export crops instead of rice on one-fifth of their land has been blamed for the widespread famine in parts of the island of Java during the 1840s and 1850s. This was eventually abolished in favour of more laissez-faire agricultural practices. In the

early 1900s, the Dutch began what was called their Ethical Policy, in which agriculture, health, and educational services were set up and developed, and an infrastructure in the form of railways, roads, and interisland shipping established. What this policy created, however, were Western-educated Indonesians as well as a small group of entrepreneurs and small landholders. This group began to compete with the predominately Chinese commercial class, and Indonesians' resentment of a colonial structure that limited their economic power grew. During the Second World War, the Dutch hold on Indonesia diminished because of the weakening of the Netherlands by Nazi occupation. Furthermore, the Japanese occupation of Indonesia attempted to attract Indonesian support for their regime by giving the nationalist movement political power and promising them Indonesian independence and limited self-government. Indonesian men were also given military training. Two days after the surrender of Japan at the end of the Second World War, the independence of the Republic of Indonesia was declared. British troops arrived in September and left 14 months later, after persuading the Dutch and the Indonesians to sign the Linggajati Agreement, recognizing the authority of the Republic and containing plans for the establishment of a federal Indonesia. However, the Dutch launched military attacks against Indonesia in July 1947, saying the Indonesians had violated the agreement. The United Nations attempted to broker peace agreements, but the Dutch again attacked in December 1948, defying the UN ceasefire. However, guerrilla resistance and pressure from the international community eventually forced the Dutch to acquiesce. In 1949, the Dutch transferred control of Indonesia to the Republic of the United States of Indonesia, which was established as a federal system. The next year, the federal system was abolished, and Indonesia became a unitary republic. The Indonesian government was then faced with creating a governable state out of a diverse group of peoples and cultures. There were also uprisings of various government opponents, such as Muslim groups and Dutch colonials. In 1955, parliamentary elections left no clear majority. The government was considered factious, corrupt, and ineffective. In 1956, President Sukarno increased presidential authority. A series of military coups between 1956 and 1957 were one response, but these were quelled. But as the economy declined, tension continued to grow between the army and the Communists (Partai Komunis Indonesia, or PKI). A coup attempt in September 1965 led to General Suharto (head of the army's strategic command) suppressing the coup and taking control of the army. He talked Sukarno into handing over power to him in March 1966. The army alleges that the PKI was the instigator of the 1965 coup, but this remains a controversial allegation. Late in 1965, the

army began massacring PKI members and their supporters. Estimates indicate between 300 000 and 1 million people were killed. In 1966 the PKI was banned and hundreds of thousands of people were arrested and charged with being involved in the 1965 coup attempt. The last of these prisoners were released in 1979. Suharto established an authoritarian regime in an effort to provide stability to the country and ensure economic growth, based primarily on petroleum exports. His regime has been pro-Western and, advised by Western-educated economists, his government has encouraged foreign investment and received financial aid in the form of loans from the West. This proved successful. In 1975, Indonesia invaded the former Portuguese colony of East Timor, later annexing it against protests of both Portugal and the United Nations. The Suharto regime was not without opponents however. Critics included Muslims objecting to government control of them, and university students against corruption and the government's human-rights violations. Increasing social and economic disparity, plus population growth, added to their support. In 1998, Suharto was overthrown after 32 years of power.

Follow-up Activities 1. Research the struggle for sovereignty of the nation of East Timor. How has the legacy of colonialism affected this region?

2. The 1998 APEC summit is going to be held in Malaysia, another country that is becoming known for its human-rights abuses. Discuss the implications of the rest of the APEC members meeting in such a country.

Introduction Neutrality Two Points of View Colonial Power Freedom of the Press In the Heat of the Moment Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

Indicates material appropriate or adaptable for younger viewers.

THE APEC INCIDENT: PROTECTING FOREIGN VISITORS

Freedom of the Press

The irony of the APEC incident is that along with the Chair of the Inquiry and the Prime Minister's Office, the neutrality and objectivity of CBC's reporting on the incident has also been called into question. The following communications between the PMO and the CBC may be found at the CBC Web site www/tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/apec/milewski.html. There you will also find a response from the PMO to the CBC. Read these letters. In your opinion, what are the issues that these letters represent? Is it a question of balanced reporting and public access to information or are there other issues involved?

October 16, 1998

Dear Mr. Bazay:

I am writing to lodge an official complaint against the reporting by the CBC of the security surrounding last year's APEC Summit and of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission hearings on the matter.

Specifically, through articles in The Vancouver Sun and The Province in recent days, we have learned that CBC News, through lead journalist Terry Milewski, may from the beginning have had a specific and one-sided agenda on this issue. It appears Mr. Milewski has set out from the beginning to side with complainants, that he has secretly conspired with a complainant on legal strategies, and that he has sought to portray the government, in his own words, as "the Forces of Darkness." . . .

Clearly, the issue here is not aggressive reporting. On the APEC matter, as with any other subject or issue, there can be no complaint against vigorous and probing journalism. It is essential in a democracy. Indeed, through the years this fair and vigilant approach has been a hallmark of the CBC. Moreover, we in this office and government have enjoyed and continue to enjoy cordial and professional relations with CBC journalists. Their standards are among the highest in the industry. . . .

This is a serious and deeply disturbing matter. Canadians have a right to expect honest, fair and balanced reporting from the CBC. These revelations indicate that as far as APEC is concerned, the CBC has provided anything but. And that in its biased pursuits it may well have violated journalistic integrity and betrayed the confidence of Canadians.

That is why we have chosen to address this matter through the office of the CBC Ombudsman, an office open to all Canadians who have a grievance with reporting on the CBC. Indeed, our office certainly makes no claim to special privilege or consideration, only to the same rights all Canadians have in such circumstances. We believe that an immediate investigation needs to be made into this matter, with full and complete disclosure to Canadians. As well, action must be taken to publicly correct the damage done and ensure that it is not continued.

The gravity of this matter is obvious. I am confident that your office will treat it with the seriousness it deserves.

Sincerely,

Peter Donolo Director of Communications [The Prime Minister's Office]

19 October 1998

Dear Mr. Donolo

Your letter of complaint to the CBC Ombudsman on October 16 has raised serious, indeed alarming allegations against one CBC journalist in particular, and the credibility of our journalism as a whole, on an important story affecting Canadians.

While we in no way question your right to do so, we are gravely

concerned that the wide distribution you have given these accusations poses a threat to the reputation of CBC News and the journalists who work here. We are therefore anxious to respond as quickly as possible in order to allay both your concerns and the concerns of the people of Canada.

However, your complaints are on at least two fronts and one of them requires a substantial inquiry and due process. We speak here in relation to the allegations you are making about the methodology used by and the motives of CBC Reporter Terry Milewski in gathering material for his ongoing coverage of the APEC story and his e-mail correspondence which has emerged from evidence submitted to the RCMP Inquiry.

This matter was already the subject of an internal inquiry before your letter to the Ombudsman arrived. Three days before its arrival, Mr. Milewski had already agreed to discontinue reporting on the issue until such time as he is no longer the subject of public discussion and the matter has been resolved. We reported this matter on The National before it was raised in any other national media. A full report on the subject of your letter appeared on The National the evening we received it.

Our inquiry into this matter is continuing and will entail an extensive examination of all of the relevant material, stretching back over the past nine months. Out of respect and concern for the reputation of Mr. Milewski, we intend to pursue this with him in an orderly fashion, following established procedures. We will respond to your concerns in this matter when that process has been completed.

This letter, then, is an interim response to your contention that the CBC has not provided fair, honest and balanced reporting in its coverage of the APEC story: that we "may well have violated journalistic integrity and betrayed the confidence of Canadians", because we may have been influenced by these as yet, unproven, allegations against Mr. Milewski. . . .

We believe that our broadcasts have been fair, accurate and as close to the truth of what happened as any journalistic organization can come under circumstances where parties to one side of the story steadfastly refuse any detailed comment. Where comment of any kind by the Prime Minister or any member of his Government or any principals to the controversy were made, these were included prominently in our broadcasts.

The facts as we know them and have set them out before the Canadian people have not been challenged by you, either in your

letter, or at the time of broadcast, with the exception of one occasion when the error was immediately corrected.

Finally let me conclude by emphasizing the difficult reality of covering this story—a reality which has proven frustrating for both Terry Milewski and the senior editors of CBC News. That is the sustained unwillingness, in spite of numerous appeals, of either the RCMP or the Prime Minister's Office to answer questions or comment on any details concerning these critical events.

We recognize, of course, that both the RCMP and the PMO have the absolute right to refuse to speak and to cite the Public Inquiry as the proper place for these answers to emerge. But that is a judgement call on your part. It is also possible to argue that there is an inherent and overriding reason to satisfy the public's need to hear from its leaders now, since the details and the rationale behind what transpired at APEC and the events leading up to it are—for whatever reasons—in the public domain at this moment.

Ultimately, the Inquiry, and public opinion itself, will be the judge of what has transpired, whether or not the issues are fully discussed in the public domain beforehand.

However, as guardians of the journalism Mr. Donolo rightly points out is "essential in a democracy," we have the responsibility to inform the public as openly and as quickly as possible, as facts become available. And we cannot see that an informed and vigorous debate amongst the citizens of Canada prior to that Inquiry could in any way work against the interests of a democratic society or interfere with the work of the Inquiry.

The refusal to participate by the PMO and the RCMP unquestionably put us in an awkward position—we could not—as comprehensively as we would have wished—represent the position of those institutions, except through the memos they produced or the brief statements made by officials on the matter. On the other hand, not to broadcast what we knew because these parties would not comment meant we would be withholding information surrounding allegations that legal and constitutional experts across the country agree strike at the heart of a civil society.

What we did in the end, and will continue to do, is to act in the principle of openness and in doing so we bring to bear in the most careful fashion the "fair and vigilant approach" which you yourself acknowledge has been "a hallmark of the CBC"

In accordance with CBC policy, if you are unhappy with this interim response, we encourage you to express your views again to the CBC Ombudsman.

Yours sincerely,

Bob Culbert Executive Director TV News, Current Affairs, and Newsworld

Sandy McKean Head TV News

Kelly Crichton Executive Producer The National

cc David Bazay CBC Ombudsman

Introduction Neutrality Two Points of View Colonial Power Freedom of the Press In the Heat of the Moment Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

Indicates material appropriate or adaptable for younger viewers.

THE APEC INCIDENT: PROTECTING FOREIGN VISITORS

In the Heat of the Moment

Twenty-one groups attended the "People's Summit," which presented itself as the official opposition to the APEC summit. Among these groups were APEC Alert, Democracy Street, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the B.C. Teachers Federation. Many were protesting multinational corporate power and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the latter of which is currently under negotiation. According to one protestor, Jonathan Oppenheim, the media have lost sight of the fact that the issue isn't just about "the poor little pepper-sprayed students . . . [but in larger terms is a statement of opposition to] . . . Canada's endorsement of APEC and people in Indonesian sweatshops being abused to make us Nike shoes." It is important to note, however, that the protestors received more media coverage because of the pepper spray than would normally be the case. The student protestors have admitted that their nonviolent but illegal actions, such as charging the police lines, setting up human roadblocks on the motorcade routes, and tearing down the security fence, were intended to force the police to arrest them. One protestor, Craig Jones, admitted under cross-examination at the inquiry that his signs, consisting of the words "Free Speech" and "Democracy" displayed on coat racks, could present a security risk because they obscured views. The excerpts below are from first-person accounts as reproduced on the Web site of APEC Alert, a now-disbanded protest group. From these accounts, it is easy to imagine the situation as the protestors saw it. However, can you also imagine the situation from the point of view of an RCMP officer? After reading this material, write a report that an RCMP officer might have filed at the end of his or her shift on November 25, 1997.

(These first-person accounts may be read in full at the following Web site: www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/fuller/apec_alert/nov25/home.html.)

"The initial groups were small (10-15) and one was pepper-sprayed when they apparently didn't �get up fast enough' when a police vehicle passed. More joined until the two secondary routes were blocked by two groups of approximately 50 people. After some time it became clear we had effectively blocked all ways out of their �Lunch with Dictators' at UBC."

"This was the theme for the next day. Media, media, media, international media. We got there and stood outside the huge fence that had been constructed all over campus and delineated the perimeter of the protected security zone. . . . Then, throwing caution to the wind we decided to enter the soon-to-be security zone and join the other protestors in there by the flag pole. . . . We finally left when they said they'd arrest us and only those who wanted to be arrested stayed. The cops for some reason only dragged them out and dumped them back out at the entrance. We all cheered. They sealed up the security zone. We left for tent city for meetings and hot chocolate and pizza in the SUB building."

"Then the carnage happened. So many cops. So much pepper spray. . . . We got all 3000 people to sit down/crouch down (in a muddy field) and only those standing up to be arrested approached the fence with the hundreds of cops. . . . The media and everyone got tangled in the front, and things got exciting when some of us protestors started ripping down their make-shift fence . . . [it] came down so easily. . . . The cops went berserk. The fence peeled off. The pepper spray went spurting up into the air and straight into people's faces. . . . Media and protestors were splashed with deadly pepper spray. I got a whole bunch in my face and inhaled. . . . After a few hours of this, a stalemate developed. They refused to arrest anyone anymore, so we changed tactics. We decided to block all the roads, and not let the motorcade of dignitaries out. . . ."

"An image engraved in my mind is one protestor calmly stepping backwards saying �shame, shame, shame, shame. . .' softly and fearlessly—staring directly into the eyes of a burly RCMP officer holding a canister of pepper spray exactly 6 inches from his eyes. I demand to know why we were handled in this way; why I was sprayed indirectly four times during the (entire) protest, when I never once confronted an officer or was a threat to anyone. I simply wanted to practise my constitutional right to protest and have these �leaders' see that APEC does not have my support. We were swept under the carpet. Our voices were silenced."

"I am completely shocked by this whole incident. I cannot believe how much force and intimidation the police used against a group of students peacefully speaking out against APEC. I can't see how the actions of the police in this situation were legal. I can't explain how it feels to watch the police of your own country illegally arrest someone, use pepper-spray without provocation, and use dogs against a group of peaceful demonstrating students."

"I arrived to see a group of 20-30 people sitting, with more standing on the adjacent sidewalk. In a frightening display, RCMP officers jumped out of a train of vans and began moving quickly toward the barricade sawhorses. A gray-haired, stocky man, introduced himself as STAFF SERGEANT STUART [sic] and proceeded to inform the people sitting on the road that he was prepared to use force to clear the road in any fashion he saw fit. This angry warning was so quick and sudden that it took many by surprise, though most everyone got up, realizing violence by the RCMP was inevitable in this particular situation. . . . Nearly all the protestors—almost all of which were moving—were soaked with spray. The barricade sawhorses were pushed into people and people on the sidewalk blanketed with spray—despite not being involved in direct civil disobedience. What made matters worse was that they kicked and pushed the disoriented protestors who were stumbling to the edge of the road—blinded. . . . There were awful screams and crying. I saw one female pushed to the ground as an officer decided she wasn't moving fast enough. She was blinded and tears streamed with mucus from her eyes and nose. The RCMP then chased us up the side road spraying people at random. I screamed at Staff Sergeant Stuart to look at what he had done and what he was doing and he angrily growled he was �going to spray everybody'. He was a man possessed and I will never forget his face—his rage."

Introduction Neutrality Two Points of View Colonial Power Freedom of the Press In the Heat of the Moment Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

Indicates material appropriate or adaptable for younger viewers.

THE APEC INCIDENT: PROTECTING FOREIGN VISITORS

Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

1. Many of the APEC protestors are students on a university campus that, like many Canadian universities, benefits from corporate grants. Discuss whether protesting against corporate multinationals that help pay for post-secondary education is inconsistent or even hypocritical. Are there other social and political situations against which people actively protest that present contradictions of principle? Is it possible for a concerned citizen to protest a situation, such as clear-cut logging, when the community in which he or she lives benefits economically from the object of the protest?

2. In an interview with a Toronto newspaper in September 1998, former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten said: "I wonder what extraordinarily perverse view of public policy it is that has Western leaders taking political risks in order to reduce the chances of Asian leaders seeing what it is like to live in an open society. If a visiting Asian authoritarian sees people demonstrating concern about his country's policies, doesn't it reinforce anything we hope, even in private, a foreign minister or a prime minister says to him?" If you were Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and a journalist asked you to comment on this quote, how would you respond?

3. Joe Clark, former prime minister of Canada told The Vancouver Sun in September 1998: "There was a need to have Suharto [at APEC]. Indonesia's important. It's a massive country, a great economy, and one of the founding countries of so many of the international movements. The essential question is, do you only invite to your table people with whom you absolutely agree? Obviously that's a pretty small table." Write a letter to the editor in which you respond to Clark's statement.

4. Research the history of APEC and its formation. It is important to note

that some analysts question whether APEC as an organization will survive given the recent Asian economic downturn. Others criticize its attempt to isolate economics from politics. And yet others say APEC would never have been formed if politics had not been deliberately left out of the workings of the organization. Using APEC as a starting point, write a short essay in which you comment on the role that politics should or should not play in any international economic organization.

5. In this, the 125th anniversary year of the formation of the RCMP, the force has come in for considerable criticism from numerous sectors, in part because of the APEC incident. Research the mandate of the RCMP. Why was it formed and what are the powers that it has as a law enforcement agency? Present your findings to the class and suggest what, in your opinion, will be the impact on the reputation of the RCMP as a result of this inquiry.

6. In his book When Freedoms Collide, Alan Borovoy discusses "the case for our civil liberties." Obtain a copy of this book and research the issue of "freedom of dissent." According to Borovoy, in what ways can Canadians legally dissent? Summarize specific examples from his book and present your findings to the class.

Introduction Neutrality Two Points of View Colonial Power Freedom of the Press In the Heat of the Moment Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

Indicates material appropriate or adaptable for younger viewers.