Montreal Police Harrass Attendees of Political Meeting

On April 20, 2006, Montreal police did the following:

• lied about an assault at a political meeting on April 19


• harrassed attendees at the meeting


• sought to arrest Jaggi Singh for attending the meeting


• lied about their involvement

The political meeting was actually a benefit for child political prisoners in Palestine. It had nothing to do with violence until the police batonned youth activists who were leaving the scene. The police acted this way in response to being refused exit by the attendees who were provoked by earlier harrassment by the police.

In order to fulfil court judgment against Singh (he is not allowed to attend political meetings), Montreal police did make up the story of a physical assault in order to hide the fact that they would be arresting Jaggi Singh in order to limit his right to attend political meetings.

It is ironic that the most non-violent man in Montreal has made Montreal police so fearful of him that they need to be violent to other non-violent social activists.

However, this proves that State terrorism consists of the police provoking violence and causing greater harm to social activists who are perceived to be a threat by the State.

Here is Jaggi Singh's account about what actually happened on April 19, 2006:

At El Salon, he helped organize an event 'called "Break the Chains", an evening of speakers, spoken word, poetry and music on the theme of child political prisoners in Palestine, as well as political prisoners in general.'

Afterwards, there was a musical 'show by local hip hop artist Narcicyst of Euphrates, to be followed by DJ Leila P.'

Outside El Salon, he confronted a man who was wearing an earpiece, who had been staring at attendees of the political event.

Jaggi goes on to state:

At one point the man, who was much larger, pushed me, as well as another older participant at the event. There was no fight. The man pushed me, and the other person, and we held our ground. We continued talking with the man after the pushing, and eventually, I left to return to the event.

Someone, maybe a bystander, phoned the police. A few officers arrived outside, and then entered the venue, with the man who had the earpiece directing them towards me. One officer asked me to go outside. I asked if I was under arrest. The officer said no, but that I had to go outside. I refused, stating that if he wanted to talk, we could talk inside, in a corner, or he could phone me later (I even gave him my number). My position was quite clear: I did not have to do anything the police were asking of me, unless I was under arrest. I wanted to spend the rest of the evening at the event, and I didn't have to cooperate with police unless I was under arrest.

Very quickly, many police officers entered the venue, and many of the people attending the event, objected to their presence, and asked for a clear reason why they had to remove me. None was ever provided by the police, beyond the basic sentiment, expressed in various ways: "You have to do what we say."

I myself counted, as I was dragged out and waited in a police car, at least twenty police cars. Others said later that there were thirty police cars on site. A friend says there must have been 30-40 police who entered the venue. It was a completely disproportionate and excessive response by the police.

Moreover, if they had provided a clear reason why I had to leave the event (such as being under arrest), then I would have left. The police do not have the right to expect people attending a political/cultural event to do exactly what they want without any questions, and without providing a legitimate response. It was the police who escalated this matter. The police response was totally disproportionate and unnecessary.

It is not true that any chairs or tables were thrown at the police (I did not see any from where I was, which was in the middle of police officers who were dragging me out of the venue). In the end, five people -- 3 women and 2 men, including me -- were briefly arrested by police. None of us was jailed, or even taken into a police station. To the best of my knowledge, me and another woman were given a "promise to appear" on the charge of "obstruction" two others were given tickets for "obstruction" and the fifth person was just let go.

(I also want to mention that while I objected to the man with the earpiece staring at folks, I do not know for sure who he was -- that's exactly one of the questions I asked him. In retrospect, he probably was not involved with the police, and was likely private security for someone in the area; but, the police certainly let him give them direction at the beginning of their intervention).

This was a minor incident (an interaction outside with a man who pushed me and another person during an argument) that was turned into a major incident by an overzealous and unnecessary police response. In the end, the police couldn't even justify holding anyone longer than the time it took them to write a few tickets and citations (to which all of us, I'm sure, will plead "not-guilty"). I was able to look at the police computer while handcuffed in the backseat of the police car. When my file came up, aside from personal information (including information about my political affiliations), the file mentioned that I had no criminal record. -- http://sumoud.tao.ca/?q=node/view/613

Jaggi Singh on The Police State

Jaggi Singh has been targeted by the RCMP since 1997 when he was detained by police at APEC Vancouver. At APEC Quebec City, he was detained in 2005.

His crime? Exercising free speech without violence. Let's listen to Jaggi explain his situation, and how the State may work in limiting free speech.

"It looks like I'll be here for the next few months. I'm surprised by the situation in general. But the judgment, no. You can get a sense of a judge and the Crown and how serious they want to be about things. I was getting ready to expect this.

"We had two solid witnesses. The catapult (the weapon Singh is charged with possessing) was taken out of my hands. Judy Rebick testified to that. After I saw you on Rene Levesque Blvd. (in Quebec City last Friday), it seems everything that happened there is being put on my shoulders, but I'm not being charged with any of it. They're saying I gave orders. Well, if I gave orders, then charge me with incitement (to riot). They're not. They're saying Molotovs and rocks were thrown. If there were, I didn't throw them. And I didn't give anybody orders to throw any of them.

"So the charges against me are very clear, and on the merit of each of them, it's arguable whether I would be found guilty. I'm sure I'll be found innocent. There's no reason I should be kept in custody now.

"It's a ratcheting up, a step up of the levels of intimidation. There are different levels to this. One is using 5,000 canisters of tear gas, building a fence and mounting a huge security operation. Another level is legal intimidation, to use legal means to try to silence voices.

"Each time, whenever a handful of major world leaders are due to arrive in a Canadian city, I get abducted. They justify refusing bail by saying it would undermine confidence in the Canadian justice system. I feel the reverse: my continued detention undermines confidence because I was exercising free-expression rights. I mean, people saw me. Judy saw me. You saw me. Other people saw me. They saw my role. I wasn't some street general. I was trying to be a helpful presence, and then I left after talking to you. How can you deny liberty on these grounds?

"The people I know are upset, and this will inspire them to be more active. Obviously, instead of trying to get someone out of jail, we'd rather spend our time raising awareness and organizing more actions. We've actually managed to build up a pretty impressive movement against capitalist globalization. The next 10 years might be interesting. Various social forces might have a certain amount of power.

"There are different ways of policing this. One is this counter-insurgency model, which has three stages. The third stage is all-out civil war. The second stage is when movements become a potential threat. The first stage is when it's not a threat, when everything is open, like it is now. At that stage you get as much information as possible on everybody. You target who the leaders are because you target them in Stage 2. And you eliminate them in Stage 3.

"It's the model that's been applied in Latin America, almost word-for-word. In Quebec, an example of Stage 2 is when the October Crisis happened. Where did all these names come from? The names of the 3,000 or so people they arrested?

"The police forces were keeping track. And if you have to eliminate these 3,000 people or put them in jail, you can potentially nip in the bud any progressive politics for that time of so-called crisis.

"Other things in that model is to make lessons of people. To say that if you fight back you will have to suffer punishment. The idea being that people won't fight back, they'll simply abide by the status quo. And if they do you get to Stage 2.

"Another model that is perhaps more applicable here is this whole idea of four categories of people: the radicals, idealists, realists and opportunists. Everybody is an idealist. Everybody has this idea that things should be better and that's really a non-ideological thing. The fear is that those idealists will become radicals and start questioning the roots of the system, start questioning the power structure. People in power don't like that. You have to turn these idealists into realists, because once they're realists, they can accept the compromises that opportunists make; those being the politicians.

"And how do you turn an idealist into a realist instead of a radical? Well, a baton blow to the head is one way. Getting wafts of tear gas is another. Yet another is making the radicals seem crazy and criminal. Give the distinct impression through the media that you will be jailed. You will be treated differently and it's not worth the trouble. As long as idealists stay that way, or even better become realists or opportunists, that's great.

"It's really important to remain engaged. To avoid that dynamic of marginalization and sectarianism. To present a human face, through the community and the media. (The repression) is going to backfire because it's not like this is happening out of the blue. People understand this movement. And on a personal level they know who I am. They can't marginalize me in this way because of that track record. And it's laughable the day when a teddy-bear-launching catapult becomes a threat to national security. Apparently, it has."