G20 police tactics, a compilation of videos and leftist news stories

I have been contemplating a follow up post to this one on how the role of the police at the G20 summit actually played out, but the more I read about what went on, the less I know what to say about it. I find it sickening that this type of police brutality happened so close to home. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the protests myself (even though I really wanted to), so I am just going to link several articles that I found about the protests. Any readers with first hand accounts to share can post them too, as I have been quite interested in these stories.

News reports Saturday evening said that 300 "anarchists" began rioting... however, there were more than 900 arrests so far. I am not going to show footage of burning police cars or windows being smashed, because if those of you reading this have seen any images about the summit, those are likely the ones you have seen. What was not shown in regular media coverage was that 25,000 protesters were there to oppose the summit in and of itself, as well as various issues surrounding it.



There has been international coverage on some of the tactics used by police officers. I found this video to be especially hard to watch.


This video reminds me of a scene from Braveheart, or a similar type of war movie. The protesters finish singing the national anthem before the police attacked


There is some really good information at rabble, Toronto Media Co-op, and Canadian Dimension, among other sites.

There is also a movement demanding a public inquiry into the police tactics, with a lot of information on this facebook group. This site is asking for stories on the arrests, such as personal accounts, in order to garner more support for this inquiry. I hope most of you become involved in this, if you haven't already, because if it happened once in Canada, it can happen again here and throughout the world. Without serious opposition, this type of policing could become the norm during events such as future summits.

Here is one last video, which describes the story of a reporter who was following the "black bloc" and suspects that much of the violence was led by police officers. I'm not sure that is the case, but it seems to me as though the police may have allowed this to happen.

"Real" flawless beauty

Jezebel posted an ad for Dove from Craigslist in which they are looking for women for their "Real Beauty" campaign. As much as this campaign offers a wider beauty ideal than most other ads, it is far from challenging the definition of the word "Beauty."

The ad reads:

(...) REAL WOMEN ONLY!
LOOKING FOR 3-4 REAL WOMEN for a DOVE PRINT CAMPAIGN!

AGES 35-45, CAUCASIAN, HISPANIC, AFRICAN AMERICAN, & ASIAN!

...YOU WILL BE PHOTOGRAPHED FOR THE CAMPAIGN IN A TOWEL!
BEAUTIFUL ARMS AND LEGS AND FACE WILL BE SHOWN!
MUST HAVE FLAWLESS SKIN, NO TATTOOS OR SCARS!
Well groomed and clean...Nice Bodies..NATURALLY, FIT Not too Curvy Not too Athletic.

Great Sparkling Personalities. Beautiful Smiles! A DOVE GIRL!!!
STYLISH AND COOL!
Beautiful HAIR & SKIN is a MUST!!

I find it particularly upsetting that scars are not allowed. So many women are self-conscious about scars, and I think they could be featured in positive ways. For example, I saw an old friend of mine at the beach a couple years ago and she had silver stretch marks on her lower abdomen... I couldn't get over how beautiful and interesting they looked.. so much so that for a moment I wished that I had stretch marks (then dominant social norms kicked in and I got over it). I have a rather large scar on my leg, and I don't feel that it should affect my ability to be a "Dove Girl" (not woman, at 35-45 years of age the models are still referred to as girls)... not that I have any desire to model for Dove.

I can understand the need for "flawless skin" in the sense that Dove has acne products, and a person with acne (such as myself) could have trouble selling acne products), but scars and tattoos? I don't get it.

Also, this ad informs me that nice bodies are naturally fit and not too curvy or athletic. Like many other "love your body" type of campaigns, rather than allowing women to actually love the body that they have, it merely offers a different restrictive image that women's bodies are supposed to conform to.

And the $4000 pay for a 3 year ad campaign sounds like these models are being exploited. I wonder how much a "real" model charges for that type of ad.

Girls suck at video games!

I saw the title of this video and hesitated, expecting it to be full of "boys are better than girls" gender stereotypes, but it is actually critical commentary on gender roles that provides a (fairly accurate) visual representation of why men are still surpassing women in earnings, despite some recent claims that women are taking over.

Girls suck at video games / Les filles sont nulles aux jeux vidéo from Stéphanie Mercier on Vimeo.

Gotta love "Democracy"

For the duration of the G8/G20 summit, there is legislation in place called the Ontario Public Works Protection Act, which goes directly against the Canadian Constitution. Among other things, gives police officers in and near the fenced area:

the power to require anyone entering or attempting to enter or approaching the public work 'to furnish his or her name and address, to identify himself or herself and to state the purpose for which he or she desires to enter the public work, in writing or otherwise'.

The police may also 'search, without warrant, any person entering or attempting to enter a public work'. The police can also search 'a vehicle in the charge or under the control of any such person or which has recently been or is suspected of having been in the charge or under the control of any such person or in which any such person is a passenger'.

Finally, the police 'may refuse permission to any person to enter a public work and use such force as is necessary to prevent any such person from so entering'.

Police may arrest, without warrant 'any person who neglects or refuses to comply with a request or direction of a guard or peace officer, or who is found upon or attempting to enter a public work without lawful authority'.

Neglecting or refusing 'to comply with a request or direction made under this Act by a guard or peace officer' or if you are a person found upon a public work or any approach thereto without lawful authority means you could be found guilty of an offence and be liable to a fine of not more than $500 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two months, or to both.

This means that in Canada, people MUST show identification to police officers for no reason (sounds like the Arizona law that has so many people enraged, but with less obvious racial connotations), submit to searches of themselves and their vehicle without cause, and be arrested without a warrant, facing up to two months in prison if they fail to comply? This is taking security way too far.

It's always nice that the most elite people in the world get to throw their billion dollar party that is closed to everyone else, while the "little people" get arrested merely for being in areas near the party that they paid for. I wonder how many peaceful protesters are going to be arrested or worse because of this legislation.

The elitism and issues of social class seem so transparent with regards to this summit that I am baffled at how many people keep telling me that we need this type of security to protect world "leaders" instead of questioning who these "leaders" represent and why the summit exists in the first place.

I should also mention that this was passed secretly, with no public input and little mention until yesterday, and that it is being described as unprecedented in Canada.

Earthquake felt in town!

I guess Canadian women have been too immodest lately... Earthquake of 5.5 (now downgraded to 5.0) was felt in Ontario and Quebec.

There doesn't appear to be any major damages or injuries at this point. And yet, news about the earthquake has taken over both Canadian and American television stations right now, interrupting regular programing for a quake that, by most standards, is very small.

Toronto's G8/G20 and women's health

I just spoke at a forum tonight on the G8/G20, and I thought I would try to recreate some of what I said because I think it is important. I spoke on women's health, and more specifically, abortion. Keep in mind that this is one small piece of the summit, and there were other presenters who gave much needed information on topics like the environment, indigenous relations and global capitalism in the context of the Steelworkers strike.

I started by discussing my experiences of reading about abortions on American bloggers websites. For example, Feministe, Jezebel and Feministing have discussed the Stupak amendment at length on many occasions, which makes abortion even less accessible to poor women by restricting the use of federal funds to pay for abortions. Recently, Louisianna passed laws requiring women to get ultrasounds before abortions. Nebraska has imposed confusing laws regarding women's mental health in relation to abortions, and Utah has essentially criminalized miscarriages. Reading this over the past few years, I have often found myself greatful to live in a place where abortions are free and largely unrestricted (although not always accessible).

When Harper announced that maternal and children's health would be a major issue at the summit, I was rather pleased... and surprised. Harper is not exactly known for his women friendly policies... actually, he thinks that we have already attained gender equality! Globally and historically, women and children have not had much acess to funding for their specific health care needs, as they have taken a back seat to issues that directly affect men's health.

Then, Harper announced that this initiative would not cover abortions (my reaction to this announcement here). He explained

"We want to make sure our funds are used to save the lives of women and children"

I always thought that this was part of the purpose of abortions, but I guess the life of the fetus is being prioritized over the health of the mother. The fact is that women and girls often die when they do not have access to safe abortions.

As a sidenote, the USA does plan to include abortions in their contribution for maternal and children's health, even though they have some very restrictive laws domestically.

Women's groups began to speak out about abortions right away, and within 2 days 11 groups lost funding. Within a month, 24 women's groups lost federal funding. These cuts undermine women's equality and democracy within Canada.

Nancy Ruth, a "feminist" Conservative Senator spoke out on this issue (previously posted here), saying that women need to

"shut the fuck up on this issue... Canada is still a country with free and accessible abortion. Leave it there. Dont' make it into an election issue"

So, we are to allow white male politicians to decide what counts as maternal health (See this post), even in countries they may never have visited. Colonialism is rampant within Harper's maternal health initiative.

And, for the bigger picture. We have to fight for our right to choose, and for women everywhere to have this right. But we have to make sure that this isnt' being used as a distraction. Saving abortions might distract us from fighting for more accessible abortions for women in rural areas. This issue, as important as it is in its own right, cannot distract us from the cuts to women's programs and social spending, lenient corporate regulations that lead to tax loopholes and lacking health and safety regulation, Israeli's occupation of Palestine, aboriginal treaty rights, or any other systemic inequality.

The moral right and neoliberal movements have political power in Canada. They also have corporate sponsorship and financial backing. The left typically does not have this type of money or power. What we have is our voice, and that is why we are being told to shut the fuck up. Because when we do come together and speak, we threaten the status quo.

As those of you who know me are well aware, I will not shut the fuck up.

Will you?

Privilege... as taught by Disney

Too true... Disney princesses are not always blond, but they are always conventionally pretty and tend to be white (whiteness is pretty much the basis of Snow White's beauty). Even worse are the Barbie movies that have been coming out in the past 5 years or so, where EVERY female lead has blond hair and blue eyes.