Thèmes
- Avenir des universités
- Corps professoral
- Enseignement
- Éthique et responsabilités
- Femmes dans les universités
- Financement des universités
- Harcèlement psychologique
- Liberté universitaire
- Mondialisation et solidarité
- Organisation et gestion
- Propriété intellectuelle
- Recherche et création
- Synthèses thématiques
Bibliothèque
- Bulletin de la FQPPU
- Colloques
- Prises de position
- Publications
- Archives
- Conventions collectives
- Hyperliens
Manufacturing a climate of fear - Open letter to the residents of the Montebello area
Montreal, August 21st 2007
We met last Sunday [August 19th]. I was part of the popular education brigades that were organized by the Peoples’ Global Action of Montreal in an effort to explain to folks living in the Montebello area the reasons behind our position against the Partnership for Security and Prosperity (PSP), a “dialogue” that has been going on between Canadian, USA and Mexican leaders since 2005.
When I first approached you, you expressed fear that we, the demonstrators, would damage your village. You told me about the “information” sessions that were organized in the area over the past few weeks by the police. You explained that you were shown clips of urban riots; that the police spent time justifying the security measures that were being taken to protect you and that business owners were told to barricade their buildings and to refuse access to demonstrators. You shared your frustration at having had your phone lines cut several times per day during the past few weeks. “No”, you answered, when I asked if they had told you about the issues associated with the “dialogue” which aims to consolidate neo-liberalism.
Once the ice was broken, we were able to discuss these issues. Together, we put the PSP in context, situating it within a much larger project, project heralded by the leaders of this world for over 30 years… We noted that, overall, this project is about the (re)colonization of the commons and of peoples all over the globe.
We talked about local agriculture, biodiversity and food sovereignty – all threatened by transnational corporations benefiting from the liberalization of trade. We made connections with the destruction of the forests and farming territories for mining and oil extraction, most often on Indigenous lands.
We spoke of local businesses forced to close their doors, unable to compete with big chains like Wal-Mart. We discussed precarious work conditions; peasants and Indigenous Peoples in the Global South, forced to transform their subsistence farms into cash crops for export in order to survive; of the women of these countries who leave their families behind, hoping to better support their children, and end up working in sweatshops in the free trade zones on the US border; of those who take the chance to come to Québec and end up working as domestics in slave-like conditions, under their employer’s roof.
We talked of the insidious infiltration of the private sector in public services and utilities, a process that is greatly facilitated by these kinds of international agreements. You were surprised to learn that once health, education, water and electricity privatized, completely or in part, the decision to turn back the clock will cost a fortune given that these agreements give corporations the right to sue governments for lost profits.
We agreed that this neo-liberal program could not be enacted without control: control of the movement of people, control of resistance, control of the circulation of information. If everyone was aware of the devastating consequences of these « dialogues », the leaders would be faced with a popular revolt. As we parted, we concluded that the “information” sessions that had been organized in your villages were part and parcel of the manufacturing of a climate of fear – a climate that they need in order to push through their hidden agenda.
At this point, many of you wished me good luck and told me to take care.
Today I am writing to follow-up on our discussions. Because what you saw on TV and in the newspapers does not reflect my experience. After having spent the night in a tent in the backyard of a local sympathizer, I spent much of my afternoon the next day face to face with the riot squad, 30 feet from the doors of the Château Montebello. I saw thousands of people. Families, children, elders, punks, refugees, people come from Ontario, the US, Mexico. I saw banners of all colours and stripes garnered with all kinds of creative messages. I heard speeches and music, I saw theatre.
I participated in the attempts to push back the lines of riot police. I attempted to converse with the man, the woman, behind the shield, the mask, the helmet, the warrior gear. I tried hard to make them realize that we were all human beings, divided by our leaders. I spoke of the consequences of the PSP and I explained that by repressing us, they were partners in crime with those who were planning behind closed doors. Some were defiant; others had fear in their eyes. One officer of the SQ admitted that yes, he was “an accomplice to the rich and the fascists” (slogan that was chanted during the demonstration), but that it was worth it for the 100$ an hour that he was paid in exchange…
Around 6pm, we were listening to the last speeches – thank you to the people of Montebello who opened up their village to us; yes, we have managed to express our refusal of the PSP; no, the struggle is not over. We were encouraged to continue the mobilizations in our communities and workplaces.
It was at this point, when the demonstration was clearly over and several were beginning to walk away, that a police officer by my side suddenly shot a projectile of tear gas at a protestor beside me who was speaking in a megaphone. The crowd, panicked, moved back. My eyes were burning, my nose was running, my skin burned. The street battle, “as seen on TV”, had begun. The police line marched forward, shooting at us with tear gas (the gas is shot out of an object that looks like a machine-gun), the crowd backed-off. The couple of rocks thrown out of the crowd bounced off the well-padded police officers; but we, the protestors, fitted-up with little more than our lemon-soaked kerchiefs, are still suffering today from the brutality committed in the name of security and prosperity.
Why did the police forces start shooting when the demonstration was over? Seems to me that the only plausible explanation is that they needed to provoke a riot, knowing of course that those would be the images that would be transmitted by the media at the expense of proper explanations of the underlying issues. That these images would feed the climate of fear, create a feeling of insecurity, turn you against me, who had managed, the previous day, to pierce through the barrier of distrust, and plant a seed of revolt. But we will not be fooled. We know that police repression and disinformation are tactics that are used consciously by those who « govern us » and those who « inform us » in an effort to demobilize us, to divide us, to scare us. That is how they think they will shut us up and force us to accept their policies.
As for me, you will happy to hear that I am now more motivated to continue the struggle. But at the next confrontation, I will have a gas mask.
Hoping that one day we will be together in struggle, shoulder to shoulder,
Anna Kruzynski
Professor of community and public affairs, Concordia University and member of la Pointe libertaire
Note: the French version of this letter was published in the Devoir on August 23rd 2007.
We met last Sunday [August 19th]. I was part of the popular education brigades that were organized by the Peoples’ Global Action of Montreal in an effort to explain to folks living in the Montebello area the reasons behind our position against the Partnership for Security and Prosperity (PSP), a “dialogue” that has been going on between Canadian, USA and Mexican leaders since 2005.
When I first approached you, you expressed fear that we, the demonstrators, would damage your village. You told me about the “information” sessions that were organized in the area over the past few weeks by the police. You explained that you were shown clips of urban riots; that the police spent time justifying the security measures that were being taken to protect you and that business owners were told to barricade their buildings and to refuse access to demonstrators. You shared your frustration at having had your phone lines cut several times per day during the past few weeks. “No”, you answered, when I asked if they had told you about the issues associated with the “dialogue” which aims to consolidate neo-liberalism.
Once the ice was broken, we were able to discuss these issues. Together, we put the PSP in context, situating it within a much larger project, project heralded by the leaders of this world for over 30 years… We noted that, overall, this project is about the (re)colonization of the commons and of peoples all over the globe.
We talked about local agriculture, biodiversity and food sovereignty – all threatened by transnational corporations benefiting from the liberalization of trade. We made connections with the destruction of the forests and farming territories for mining and oil extraction, most often on Indigenous lands.
We spoke of local businesses forced to close their doors, unable to compete with big chains like Wal-Mart. We discussed precarious work conditions; peasants and Indigenous Peoples in the Global South, forced to transform their subsistence farms into cash crops for export in order to survive; of the women of these countries who leave their families behind, hoping to better support their children, and end up working in sweatshops in the free trade zones on the US border; of those who take the chance to come to Québec and end up working as domestics in slave-like conditions, under their employer’s roof.
We talked of the insidious infiltration of the private sector in public services and utilities, a process that is greatly facilitated by these kinds of international agreements. You were surprised to learn that once health, education, water and electricity privatized, completely or in part, the decision to turn back the clock will cost a fortune given that these agreements give corporations the right to sue governments for lost profits.
We agreed that this neo-liberal program could not be enacted without control: control of the movement of people, control of resistance, control of the circulation of information. If everyone was aware of the devastating consequences of these « dialogues », the leaders would be faced with a popular revolt. As we parted, we concluded that the “information” sessions that had been organized in your villages were part and parcel of the manufacturing of a climate of fear – a climate that they need in order to push through their hidden agenda.
At this point, many of you wished me good luck and told me to take care.
Today I am writing to follow-up on our discussions. Because what you saw on TV and in the newspapers does not reflect my experience. After having spent the night in a tent in the backyard of a local sympathizer, I spent much of my afternoon the next day face to face with the riot squad, 30 feet from the doors of the Château Montebello. I saw thousands of people. Families, children, elders, punks, refugees, people come from Ontario, the US, Mexico. I saw banners of all colours and stripes garnered with all kinds of creative messages. I heard speeches and music, I saw theatre.
I participated in the attempts to push back the lines of riot police. I attempted to converse with the man, the woman, behind the shield, the mask, the helmet, the warrior gear. I tried hard to make them realize that we were all human beings, divided by our leaders. I spoke of the consequences of the PSP and I explained that by repressing us, they were partners in crime with those who were planning behind closed doors. Some were defiant; others had fear in their eyes. One officer of the SQ admitted that yes, he was “an accomplice to the rich and the fascists” (slogan that was chanted during the demonstration), but that it was worth it for the 100$ an hour that he was paid in exchange…
Around 6pm, we were listening to the last speeches – thank you to the people of Montebello who opened up their village to us; yes, we have managed to express our refusal of the PSP; no, the struggle is not over. We were encouraged to continue the mobilizations in our communities and workplaces.
It was at this point, when the demonstration was clearly over and several were beginning to walk away, that a police officer by my side suddenly shot a projectile of tear gas at a protestor beside me who was speaking in a megaphone. The crowd, panicked, moved back. My eyes were burning, my nose was running, my skin burned. The street battle, “as seen on TV”, had begun. The police line marched forward, shooting at us with tear gas (the gas is shot out of an object that looks like a machine-gun), the crowd backed-off. The couple of rocks thrown out of the crowd bounced off the well-padded police officers; but we, the protestors, fitted-up with little more than our lemon-soaked kerchiefs, are still suffering today from the brutality committed in the name of security and prosperity.
Why did the police forces start shooting when the demonstration was over? Seems to me that the only plausible explanation is that they needed to provoke a riot, knowing of course that those would be the images that would be transmitted by the media at the expense of proper explanations of the underlying issues. That these images would feed the climate of fear, create a feeling of insecurity, turn you against me, who had managed, the previous day, to pierce through the barrier of distrust, and plant a seed of revolt. But we will not be fooled. We know that police repression and disinformation are tactics that are used consciously by those who « govern us » and those who « inform us » in an effort to demobilize us, to divide us, to scare us. That is how they think they will shut us up and force us to accept their policies.
As for me, you will happy to hear that I am now more motivated to continue the struggle. But at the next confrontation, I will have a gas mask.
Hoping that one day we will be together in struggle, shoulder to shoulder,
Anna Kruzynski
Professor of community and public affairs, Concordia University and member of la Pointe libertaire
Note: the French version of this letter was published in the Devoir on August 23rd 2007.