Police in Protesters Clothing

Bush and Harper together at the Fairmont le Chateaux Montebello, Quebec, Canada, for the Leadership Summit on Monday, August 20, 2007. Photo by Evan Vucci (AP/Evan Vucci). [Source]

Were the police in Montebello, Quebec involved in some conspiracy? The recent allegations by peaceful protesters at the Summit suggests they were.

{Read Fake Summit protesters provoked violence: Union in the Globe and Mail}

Last week protesters, (among them my housemate), gathered to show their disapproval of the meeting between Prime Minister Stephen Harper, US President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderón. There were three protesters wearing bandanas and the same boots as officers. They held rocks and advanced straight through the police line. However, when protesters checked into the situation to find there is no record of their arrest, they became suspicious that they were police planted as protesters to incite violence and thereby give police a justification for the tear gas and violence that ensued.

My roomate got his first activist lesson at the protest, gaining advice from other protesters to carry a rag soaked in vinegar for the seeming inevitability of gas at any protest involving high profile politicians. He said it was confusing and eerie trying to run around through the cemetery across from the Summit, where police in riot gear were omnipresent.

It was a shame that despite there being mention of the protesters, there was no message reported by the mainstream media regarding why they were there. The results of the Summit were equally ambiguous with Stephen Harper and George Bush differing on their opinions of Canada's Arctic Sovereignty and Calderón responding to the fact that his country was currently experiences hurricanes. Bush stated that "We believe it's an international passage. Having said that, the United States does not question Canada's sovereignty over its Arctic islands" (National Post) but seemed to contradict himself by suggesting that the Northwest passage is open to the US whenever it pleases. Stephen Harper hinted that Canadians may end their mission in Afghanistan after their commitment of staying until 2009 is complete but that depends on parliamentary support for the mission or lack thereof.

There was no open mention of the Security and Prosperity Parnership of North America, which is what I am really interested in hearing about. This document, drafted in March of 2005, is already underway as a strategy to, in effect, erase North American borders or at least make them more accessible to an elite echelon of "trusted travelers".

The SPP has many people concerned about transparency because there has been little to no mention of what is actually going on. What is known is that several corporations have been formed into "working groups" such as the transportation working group NASCO, which is currently building "SuperCorridor"s where certain traders can gain expedient access through our borders. Others argue it is a necessary solution to our current crisis over the flow of trade between NAFTA members but why haven't there been any congressional meetings? What has been agreed upon between the US, Canada and Mexico? Why the secrecy? Wasn't one of Harper's main missions to restore the transparency and accountability of the Canadian government? The SPP would give certain groups free access to the sky, roads or water and make use of biometrics to track, identify and record their movements.

Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report had a fun time making fun of Stephen Harper as a "Dudley Do Little". Take a look:



Canadians should also be asking questions about our water pipelines to the south and exactly which projects will be undertaken to strengthen our sovereignty in the arctic region on "military, economic and social" fronts. When Summits like these occur, it is easy to be reminded of George Orwell's 1984 in which there are but three major states comparable to today's three trade unions: APEC, EU and NAFTA.

In a convoluted argument designed to reinforce his apparent support for "democracy", George Bush bantered about, distinguishing the differences between "bottom up" and "top down" political transition in Iraq and why it's difficult to make democracy work there. The analogy could easily be applied here in Canada where the interplay between protesters and policemen was quite evident. Interestingly though, sometimes the two forces get lost in each other and the enemy is actually within.

Politics