I regret leaving the impression in my remarks that the vandals at the G20 protests represent the views of all who call themselves anarchists. I understand the majority of anarchists are not in favour of using any kind of violence.

The first is in response to this: "As I was reading the hundreds of incidents reports that Canadian Civil Liberties Association has received, I was struck by the common themes: astonishment and fear. People could not believe that such conduct could occur in Canada and they now fear the police."

I think that new awareness is something that needs to be respected, and the energy that it gives towards new efforts for social change needs to be supported. However, I think we need to recognize that this kind of reaction comes from a particular range of privileged standpoints. I say this because this has been me, after my first real experience of the police in the aftermath of a nonviolent direct action more than a decade ago. However, our struggles against these abuses have to centrally recognize that there are lots of other people in Canada for whom these experiences of the police are an everyday thing, and they would have no "astonishment" about police behaviour at the G20 (except perhaps for who the targets were). I'm thinking particularly of many people who are racialized, poor, trans, or in other ways significantly marginalized, for whom the threat of police harassment and violence is part of everyday life. If we respond to the G20 abuses without recognizing these everyday abuses, we further entrench the marginalizations these people experience.

My other comment is in response to the way that David de Weerdt uses the politial label "anarchist." He seems to be buying into the more mainstream campaigns to demonize anarchists, which appears to be reminiscent of efforts to demonize using the label "Communist" in decades past. Not all of the people engaged in targeted property destruction at the G20 were anarchists, and the population of people who either explicitly identify as anarchists or who are significantly influenced by anti-authoritarian politics even if they do not claim that label is much larger and more diverse than the small group using such tactics in Toronto.

Of course, I am one of those people who thinks there is no basis whatsoever in history to talk seriously about the "benign intent of the State in Canada," so we'd probably have lots of other points of difference to discuss too.

The apathy of the populations in the west will only be affected when people get hungry enough. It will not be an easy time. I can only hope there will be a rich unecologically devastated earth to save.

As they say, "If voting could change the world it would be illegal."

On the one hand, we have the majority of Canadians (I heard it said two thirds in one post-G20 poll) who appear not to be disturbed by the actions of law enforcement at the G20. Sadly, without their having it given it much real thought, it would appear that they've decided that the civil rights of the G20’s 'anarchist rabble' is a Red Herring, unworthy of their concern. To them, this was a story of lawless radicals getting the trouncing they deserved – 'rights' talk seems slightly or even very offensive to many, who feel righteously angry that vandals set fires and broke windows. If asked about any 'innocents' that were hurt accidentally in police action to restore order, they say these people should have known better than to go near the protests. Case closed, mind closed. This public outcome seems like a satisfying win to the Harper government. It is in fact a black mark on our national reputation.

I should note that the responses from federal Liberal and NDP leaders that I have received (calling for an Independent Public Inquiry) all sidestep the rights issue in relation to the G20. They are instead focused on the G20 issues they believe people DO care about: like the cost of the G20, and why it was held in Toronto when it could have been help somewhere less disruptive. They want the votes of the majority group of public opinion. “There go the people, we are their leaders!” they cry, as they scamper for a place in front of the public opinion crowd, all angry at the chaos that erupted in the downtown core of our largest city.

The small population of anarchists in Canada also feels it has won ground. They can point to the disregard for legal due process and civil rights by law enforcement at the G20, and to the general unconcern about this by political leadership (and by the majority of Canadians). They didn't need to 'win' their pitched battle with law enforcement in the streets of Toronto. They needed to lose. Their win was to provoke law enforcement to break civil rights, and to physically intimidate and hurt innocent citizens. What they won was that story, which they can use to firm the missionary zeal of new recruits to their cause, and sow doubt in the minds of the public about benign intent of the State in Canada. What a great pity that even just a few bright young idealists will be turned against our system of laws.

Civil rights must be defended, even for people we are revolted by or merely disagree with…yes, even for people accused of murder, child abuse, of grand theft, drug peddling, tax evasion and of lesser crimes like vandalism, as occurred at the G20. They must be defended for all. And legal due process must be upheld.

These arguments now fall largely on deaf ears. Clearly, most Canadians do not want to hear them. They misunderstand what is really at stake. While deeply disappointed in the Harper and McGuinty governments, I will not lose my faith in Canadians or in the ideal of Canada. In another crisis, another day, in another 'moment of truth' opportunity to define by action that we believe in human rights and in our own Charter, we will stand up for human rights bravely as before. Enough champions of true Canadian values will find their voices to wake the rest to what is at stake in protecting civil rights. Just not today. I wish I were wrong.