{ texts for nothing }

Posted here not because I necessarily agree with the message or the tactics it defends, but because most folks who read this blog won’t see it otherwise:

In defense of the black bloc: A communique from Olympic resisters

February 14th, 2010 – Vancouver, Coast Salish Territories

On February 12th and 13th, 2010, thousands of courageous individuals came together to resist the 2010 Olympic police state and to attack the corporations plundering the land and deepening poverty. We write this communique as participants in and organizers of the black bloc presence at these demonstrations, known as “Take Back Our City” and “2010 Heart Attack.”

On February 12th, the Vancouver Police Department pacified us with a force of mounted police. The next day during 2010 Heart Attack, they deployed riot police armed with M4 carbine assault rifles. They claim this was necessary in order to stop the march from “jeopardizing public safety” – yet the only threats to public safety were in their own hands. Participants in the demonstration only undertook strategic attacks against corporations sponsoring the Olympics and did not harm or attack bystanders.

The media are now busy denouncing the political violence of property destruction, such as the smashing of a Hudson’s Bay Company window, as though it were the only act of violence happening in this city. They forget that economic violence goes on daily in Vancouver. People are suffering and dying from preventable causes because welfare doesn’t give enough to afford rent, food or medicine, and because authorities routinely ignore the medical emergencies of poor or houseless individuals. This economic violence has gotten worse as we lose housing and social services because of the Olympic Games. In response to this assault, thousands took to the streets, hundreds joining what is known as a black bloc.

The black bloc is not a formal organization; it has no leadership, membership, or headquarters. Instead, the black bloc is a tactic: it is something people *do* in order to accomplish a specific purpose. By wearing black clothing and masking our faces, the black bloc allows for greater protection to those who choose active self-defense. The majority of people involved in the black bloc do not participate in property destruction. However, in masking up they express their solidarity with those who choose to take autonomous direct action against the corporations, authorities and politicians who wage war on our communities.

Participation in the black bloc is an act of courage. With only the shirts on our backs and the masks on our faces, we took to the streets against Canada’s largest ever “peacetime” police force. Protected only by black fabric and the support of our comrades, we stood in front of antiriot cops armed with assault rifles, pistols and batons. We proved that $1 billion of “security” couldn’t prevent us from clogging the heart of downtown Vancouver and crashing a party of 100 000 people — and getting away with it.

You won’t ever know who was in the black bloc this weekend, but you do know us. We are the people who organize community potlucks, who dance during street festivals, who make art, defend the land, build co-ops, bicycles and community gardens. When we put on our black clothing, we are not a threat to you, but to the elites.

Whoever you are, one day you will join us. As long as government and corporations attack our communities, we’re going defend – and that means attack.

Signed,

Two organizers and participants in the anarchist presence of the “Take back our city” demonstration and “2010 Heart Attack” street march, February 2010, Coast Salish Territories

Warning: the following video contains swearing, vandalism, riot cops, and activists articulately explaining why they oppose the Games. (I didn’t make the video — it’s from the Vancouver Media Co-op, which is producing and aggregating lots of good coverage of the anti-Olympic protests.)

• Number of Canadian Forces troops fighting a war in Afghanistan: 2,830.
• Number of security personnel at the 2010 Olympics: 15,000, including 4,000 military personnel.

Conclusion: hosting the Olympics is five times more dangerous than getting involved in a land war in Asia.

News from the Tyee:

Vancouver’s two major newspapers are sponsoring a government-run centre that will tell international media covering the 2010 Winter Olympics about how the province is dealing with homelessness issues in the city’s troubled Downtown Eastside. [...]

News that BC Housing and the City of Vancouver wanted to establish a centre to “showcase the range of programs and services that have been undertaken to address the issues of homelessness” was first reported by Public Eye in November. ”We think there’s a good story to tell about what we’ve done in B.C. for homelessness, mental health, drug addiction,” Housing and Social Development Minister Rich Coleman later explained in an interview with The Globe and Mail’s Frances Bula.

Now it comes to light that six private sector interests — including The Vancouver Sun and The Province — are sponsoring that centre, which is being set up in the Woodwards building and will also target the city’s international visitors.

(Hat tip: Sean Orr at Beyond Robson.)

According to progressive economist Erin Weir, in the near future, any major cuts to public spending in Canada are likely to happen at the provincial level, rather than being imposed by our resident dictator prime minister and his cronies.

The federal government spends money on three things: transfers to individuals (Old Age Security, Employment Insurance and child benefits), transfers to provincial governments, and federally-delivered services. The Conservatives have pledged not to cut either type of transfer.

I see no reason to be sanguine about those “transfers to individuals” — EI, for example, has been systematically gutted over the years — but let’s assume for the sake of argument that the Conservatives keep their pledge and Erin Weir’s analysis holds true on this point.

In 2008-09, the last complete fiscal year, the federal government spent $108.1 billion on major transfer programs, $30.2 billion on transfers through other programs, and $69.6 billion on federal departments and agencies. If all transfers are untouchable, then only one-third of federal expenditures are eligible for cuts (i.e. $69.6 / $207.9 = 33%).

Out of that third, National Defence was $18.8 billion and Public Safety was $8.9 billion. If anything, the Conservatives would like to spend more in these areas.

These “untouchable” ministries so dear to Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are, of course, the ministries responsible for occupying foreign countries, handing over Afghan prisoners to be tortured, using security certificates to imprison Canadian residents indefinitely on the basis of secret evidence (a practice which remains legal in Canada despite recent court victories for Adil Charkaoui and Hassan Almrei), and protecting Canada from Teh Gay. But I digress.

The Canada Revenue Agency was $7.1 billion and the Treasury Board was $2.2 billion. These entities are presumably indispensable in collecting taxes and managing expenditures. Crown-corporation expenses were $8.1 billion, funding needed to deliver the mail, insure mortgages and generate Crown-corporation revenues.

Excluding these expenditures leaves only $24.5 billion from which the Conservatives could realistically cut. To put that number in perspective, it is less than half of this year’s deficit, about half of the deficit projected for 2010-11, and a few billion below the deficit projected for 2011-12. So even if the Conservatives completely eliminated the federal departments of Agriculture, Environment, Fisheries, Foreign Affairs, Health, Human Resources, Indian Affairs, Industry, Justice, Natural Resources and Public Works, they would still not save enough to balance the budget next year or even the year after that. [...]

Therefore, I tend to believe that the federal government will just try to restrict spending growth and wait for revenues to recover along with the economy. As Carl Sonnen suggested to Straight Goods, the real and imminent threat of cutbacks is from provincial governments.

Here in BC, I’m not sure what’s left to cut. During the last provincial election, the BC Liberals insisted that the deficit would not exceed $495 million. Then, as soon as the election was over, they released a budget that showed a record $2.8 billion deficit. The result? Cuts to libraries and student aid in the middle of a recession, when more people than ever need those services. An 81% reduction in arts spending (no, I’m not missing a decimal point). $8.8 million in cuts to BC’s Environmental Protection Agency. Balanced-budget requirements for health authorities which have resulted in a plethora of hard-to-track cuts to health care services. A freeze on school district budgets will have similar effects on education. A 6% increase in monthly health care fees — again, bad news for those hit hard by the recession, those on fixed incomes, and those who were already barely getting by. And that’s just since last September.

Then there’s the Olympics. Total public spending is difficult to calculate, in part because of a lack of government transparency, but also because there are plenty of projects — the Sea-to-Sky highway expansion, for example — that are only happening because of the Olympics but which will never be included in any official tally of public spending. Still, it’s been estimated that the people in power, provincially and federally, are spending something like $6 billion on the 2010 Games. That includes the creation of a $900-million security apparatus to keep those dirty protesters out of sight prevent terrorist attacks during the Games. This is what the state has chosen to spend your tax dollars on — not fundamental public services like health care and education, but a bloated and pointless spectacle.

What we’re seeing here is the ongoing erosion of the government-funded social safety net in Canada. First, there are tax cuts, which reduce government revenues. (As Erin Weir points out, the Conservative government’s tax cuts “will cost $44.4 billion per year in lost revenue by 2014-15.”) If there’s a budget deficit, it’s used to justify cuts to public services; if there’s a surplus, as we saw under Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, it’s used to pay down the debt and cuts are justified as “keeping our house in order.” Then something like the current economic crisis comes along, decimating government revenues. The result is a budget shortfall which justifies additional cuts. When the economy eventually “recovers,” it’s used as an excuse to introduce further tax cuts, which we’re told we can afford because times are good. And so on.

Who benefits from this? The same people who own the politicians who claim to speak for us: the people with money, the elite class that owns and operates the businesses most of us work for. Low taxes serve their interests, since they end up with more profits in their pockets; so does a weak social safety net, which makes for a compliant workforce (you’ll put up with lower pay and inferior working conditions if, for one reason or another, you can’t afford to leave your job). As long as essential public services are funded by governments in thrall to business interests — and in a capitalist system, all governments are ultimately in thrall to business interests — then those essential public services will always be under threat, and politicians will cut as much as they can get away with in order to please their masters.