Reads like the usual tactics are on display in Toronto this weekend. See also : Pittsburgh beefs up security to greet G20 (September 21, 2009). And do read Canada’s brewing ‘insurgency’ by Jon Elmer (Al Jazeera, June 26, 2010):
In Manitoba, 71 per cent of prisoners are native, although natives represent only 15 per cent of the province’s population; in Saskatchewan, the number is even higher, with natives accounting for 80 per cent of prisoners but only 11 per cent of the population.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police recently characterised the prison system as “community colleges for [native] gangs”.
These “gangs” are increasingly politicised and some of Canada’s leading military planners are warning that a full-blown uprising is gathering.
The groups operate in what the military calls “ungoverned spaces” that are increasingly difficult to police.
They are also sophisticated, operating under the “Robin Hood” principle of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, say military planners.
When combined with their tangible grievances, “you have the root causes which can be the fuel for an insurgency. It’s entirely feasible,” said Bland.
State authorities have developed and continue to implement (and to revise) a fairly standard repertoire of repressive tactics inre (anti-)summit protests. In addition to reinforcing otherwise routine forms of infiltration and surveillance of protest movements, authorities:
i) conduct propaganda campaigns — in conjunction with state/corporate media, selected public figures and media and political commentators — aimed at transforming the image of the ‘good’ protester into that of the ‘bad’ terrorist, raising expectations of ‘protester violence’, and thus justifying and providing a pretext for paramilitary-style policing;
ii) introduce new or augment existing laws in order to provide for a wider range of offences and greatly increased penalties inre protest activities;
iii) ensure police are able to perform their duties either with virtual legal immunity for their actions or in the reasonable expectation of having the responsibility for any unfavourable legal outcomes assumed by the state;
iv) identify and target for arrest presumed ‘leaders’ (either before, during or after protest activity);
v) construct (temporary) walls and establish perimeters around summit locations, often including the designation of particular areas as being under special laws;
vi) conduct pre-emptive strikes upon convergence spaces, frequently involving mass arrests, and invariably the identification of those present and the collation of (other) materials leading to the identification of (other) participants;
vii) sever, on the basis of tactical differences, links between groups operating in coalition;
viii) destroy and/or seriously damage and/or confiscate materials intended to be used in the course of protest or during its organisation;
ix) obstruct the activities of independent media, legal monitoring and medical aid in particular.