An Open Border for Shut Mouths?

If a U.S. or Canadian border agent thinks a traveller intends to criticize Vancouver’s 2010 Winter Olympic Games, that traveller will suffer.

On three separate documented occasions in October, November, and December 2009, individuals have undergone interrogation and exclusion – with greatly varying degrees of media attention paid to their plights.

 
October: Gord Hill and Marla Renn

The first instance was the least reported. On 17 October 2009, Gord Hill and Marla Renn, two activists associated with the Olympic Resistance Network, were denied entry to the United States for a speaking engagement in Seattle on the pretext that they were transporting illegitimate merchandise (a few anti-Olympic t-shirts). Hill says that a Canadian policing official told him a few days later that he would never again be allowed into the United States.

Media coverage of this double turnback at the border was thin. The only print story appeared in the Georgia Straight. The other reporting appeared online, with two of the accounts written by Hill himself.

 
November: Amy Goodman

On 25 November 2009, well-known U.S. journalist Amy Goodman was detained for over an hour by Canadian border agents. She was pointedly and persistently questioned (at least six times) about her intentions to speak about the 2010 Olympic Games while in Canada. Officials demanded her notes, searched her car, and examined her computer. Her two colleagues also received scrutiny. Eventually Goodman was allowed to enter Canada, after being photographed and restricted to 48-hour entry on a work visa. On previous trips to Canada, the journalist had encountered no such requirements.

Subsequently Goodman talked about the incident on her radio show. She also wrote a piece entitled “Canada’s Olympic Crackdown,” describing her experience as

a flagrant violation of freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

She went on from there to relate what she has learned about massive security spending, restrictive bylaws, potential displacement of homeless people, distortion of public spending priorities, and harrassment of activists.

The detention, questioning, and searching of this high-profile journalist received extensive media coverage both in Canada and in the United States. News of the incident continued to come out for a week, in Canada at least, with later reporting featuring the viral spread of the reporting.

 
December: Marla Renn

On 10 December 2009 Marla Renn was again turned back at the U.S. border, this time with a warning that if she attempted another entry in the next six months, she would face two years in prison.

A trained teacher, Renn was on her way to speak at educational events in the Portland area. Scheduled locations included Mt. Hood Community College, Reed College, and Portland State University. If nothing else, her disappointed audiences in the land of the free got a first-hand distance lesson in overt state repression.

U.S. authorities at Pacific Crossing detained Renn for over six hours while they grilled her about her speaking topics, her contacts in Portland, and her political activities. They searched her belongings, fingerprinted and photographed her, photocopied her notes, and required her to sign a document that they refused to give her a copy of. Grounds for exclusion were a lack of ties and equities in Canada. No employment since August graduation carried far more weight in this dubious assessment than did her marriage to a Vancouver resident.

That was not the end. U.S. officials physically escorted Renn to the Canadian border station, where they handed over her speaking notes, cell phone, and camera to their northern counterparts. Renn’s home country then put her through another two hours of detention and interrogation while unabashedly ransacking her cell phone. After spending the equivalent of a full working day with border guards, the hapless traveller was at last allowed to return to Vancouver.

 
Conclusions

Olympic critics who try to cross the border are likely to slam into security overkill. These three incidents demonstrate everything from refusal of entry, to imposition of restrictive conditions, to detentions of up to eight hours.

Mainstream Canadian media became quite excited about the treatment of a well-known American journalist. Yet that journalist was so innocent she had no idea that Olympics meant anything more than Obama going to Copenhagen. (At least until she stumbled into Canada’s Olympic crackdown.) Meanwhile, the much bigger story of how Canadian officials mistreat Canadians has continued to go widely underreported.

 
*     *     *

(In chronological order)

 
October: Gord Hill and Marla Renn

Gord Hill. “The JIG is up! Gord Hill threatened with rendition by Olympic cops,” Vancouver Media Co-op (21 Oct 2009)

Geoff Dembicki. “Activist claims anti-Games comments got him banned from US,” Tyee (28 Oct 2009)

Geoff Dembicki. “Olympics activist detained six hours at US border,” Tyee (11 Dec 2009)

 
November: Amy Goodman

“U.S. journalist grilled at Canada border crossing,” CBC News (26 Nov 2009)

Josh Wingrove. “U.S. journalist says she was delayed at border, questioned about speech,” Globe & Mail (26 Nov 2009)

Lalo Espejo. “Amy Goodman gets brilliant story idea from Canadian border guards,” Vancouver Observer (27 Nov 2009)

Linda Nguyen. “Journalist held at B.C. border, grilled on Games views,” Province (27 Nov 2009)

Petti Fong. “What Olympics? Baffled U.S. radio host interrogated at border,” Toronto Star (28 Nov 2009)

“Border grilling so bush league [editorial],” Province (29 Nov 2009)

Amy Goodman. “Canada’s Olympic crackdown,” Democracy Now! (1 Dec 2009)

David Beers. “US journalist’s howl over Olympics interrogation is going viral,” Tyee (2 Dec 2009)

Rod Mickleburgh. “Amy Goodman’s border woes has Americans in a tizzy,” Globe & Mail (3 Dec 2009)

 
December: Marla Renn

Geoff Dembicki. “Olympics activist detained six hours at US border,” Tyee (11 Dec 2009)

Carlito Pablo. “Olympic critic says she was denied entry to U.S., harassed at border,” Georgia Straight [online] (11 Dec 2009)

Bob Mackin. “Civil rights wound up?” 24 Hours Vancouver (14 Dec 2009) 5

Rod Mickleburgh. “Olympic critic questioned, denied entry to U.S.,” Globe & Mail (12 Dec 2009)

Marla Renn. “Attempts to silence dissent won’t stifle resistance to 2010 Olympics,” Georgia Straight [online] (18 Dec 2009)

Olympics Q & A (December 15)

On the evening of 15 December 2009, four officials talked about the planning for the 2010 Winter Olympics, and then answered questions from a group of a little more than two dozen. The event seemed poorly advertised. I learned about it only through a forwarded email. The main purpose may have been to add another “consultation” to the list recited by Steve Sweeney without attracting much attention or audience. The venue was the Rickshaw Theatre at 252 E. Hasting St. The presenters were:

• Bud Mercer, Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security Unit (V2010-ISU)
• Steve Sweeney, Vancouver Police Department (VPD)
• Jerry Dobrovolny, Assistant City Engineer, City of Vancouver
• David McLellan, General Manager, Community Services Group, City of Vancouver

Bud Mercer said that the “go live” date for v2010-ISU is 21 January 2010. The jurisdiction of V2010-ISU will be “fenceline in” at Olympic venues, while the VPD will cover “fenceline out,” or “the urban domain.” V2010-ISU security forces reached 500 a few days ago and will stand at 6000 by 10 February 2010. Of the 6000, 4300 are RCMP and 1700 are drawn from 118 police departments across Canada. Access to venues will be handled by 4800-plus private security officers. They will be supervised by regular police at a ratio of 1 to 4. Military forces will number 4000. Only VPD will operate in the Vancouver urban domain.

Steve Sweeney enumerated various outreach and liaison efforts, including the Pivot dialogue series, an urban core group, the Civil Liberties Advisory Committee, and Game Plan sessions. An officer focused on the homeless has determined that 10 people will be displaced when venue barriers go up. The Assistance to Shelter Act will be used on “very few occasions” and have “minimal application.” The VPD has been working with organizations who plan to protest. The two mentioned were Women’s Memorial March (Feb 14) – the VPD is “working around” their requirements – and Critical Mass – which “won’t be large”. Sweeney said that the city street can be a dangerous place to be. Police are not concerned about “the bona fide groups,” but about “small groups trying to hijack” events. Police want to be “guardians” and keep a “safe perimeter.”

Jerry Dobrovolny said that 4 February 2010 is the target date for transportation changes like olympic lane restrictions, and 5 February 2010 will see closure of the viaducts. Olympic lanes will function like existing bus-only lanes, and will be defined only by signage, with no barriers erected.

David McLellan outlined areas that fall within his portfolio: public art, housing and tenants (the Residential Tenancy Act is a provincial matter and the Province has refused to afford protections beyond current rules), community services (there are plans to “go beyond the normal program” and “celebrate” – specific mention made of the Carnegie Centre), bylaw enforcement (contrasted with keeping the peace and dealing with criminal acts), overcrowding and safety, and commercial exploitation of the public realm. Bylaw enforcement will be stepped up. The Planning Department will shut down during the Olympics. City Council will not meet. City Hall will only have morning office hours.

The question and answer session ranged over a variety of topics:

• When asked about the removal and recent return of an art gallery mural (five Olympic rings containing four sad faces and one happy face), McLellan said: The bylaw officers were “a little bit too zealous” and sent the “wrong signal.” A “miscommunication” dealt with the owner rather than the tenant.
• A question about signage started from previous bylaw wording that has been abandoned. McLellan emphasized that the concern is with commercial signage, with the bylaw providing for special expedited enforcement. After reasonable time, “say a day,” action will be taken. Without owner permission, the City will “have to have a warrant.” For other signage the ordinary bylaw applies, with no action taken for 30 days. The questioner then proposed a hypothetical cloth banner. McLellan supposed that such a sign might present a safety issue and thus not be exempt. The questioner then specified a cloth banner that said Fuck You and Your Fucking Olympics, moved the theoretical banner back ten feet from the sidewalk, and draped it across a house. McLellan’s response tailed off in a nervous sentence where the big word was probably.
• A question about the recent reported tactic of infiltrating a protest group with a bus-driving undercover police officer drew a frank response from Mercer. He said that Victoria Police Chief Jamie Graham “spoke out of turn” and “has apologized to me.” Mercer went on beyond that initial statement to further disapprove of Graham’s action and to dissociate himself from it.
• Sweeney said that the only Olympic commitment of space on the south side of the Vancouver Art Gallery is to an “Aboriginal carving demo.” Apart from that, the space will remain available for its traditional uses. He later added that the area is “not a designated venue.”
• In response to a question about “designated protest zones,” Mercer turned the terminology toward “safe assembly area” and referred to the Hughes Report on APEC protest. “If you protest lawfully, it’s none of my business.” To a question about when safe assembly areas would be announced, Mercer said that the planning is “85 to 90 percent there.”
• A questioner referred to the 13 December 2009 protest of the Olympic Kidnapping Act that started from the Vancouver police station on Main Street, noting that the occupation of streets was “normal practice” though technically illegal, and went on to ask if these traditional protest standards would still apply during the Olympics. Sweeney talked about “justifiable” and “proportionate” protest and response, and the need to maintain a “safe envelope.” He said yes to a march, no to a blockade. An action should not “overly impact.” Police will “negotiate.”
• Dobrovolny said SkyTrain will shut down 2:15 am to 5:00 am because of maintenance requirements. Rule relaxations should make more taxis available. Night buses will run.
• To a question about access to parks, McLellan responded that there is a “major expansion of shelters.” Oppenheimer Park work will be completed in January. David Lam will be the only closed park.
• After reference to the Assistance to Shelter Act, the disincentives to using shelters, and the outcome of the recent appeal of the ruling on tents for shelter, a questioner asked about City of Vancouver policy. McLellan replied that “there hasn’t been a great demand for tents” and there are “better ways.” Someone with figures stated that 130 additional shelter spaces have been created and the total now stands at 1100.
• Asked if he anticipated gridlock, Dobrovolny said he foresees “heavy congestion throughout the entire day,” with fluctuations caused by anticipation-experience cycles in transportation choices made by individuals.
• Mercer numbered the “secure venues” in Vancouver at 15, not the 30-40 proposed by a questioner. He went on to say that the footprint of fencing is small, and mainly determined by VANOC requirements for staging space.
• Sweeney explained that the enforcement consequences of the “zone streets” specified in Schedule C of the new Olympic bylaw relate only to commercial advertising, and have no implications of restriction on “assembly,” other signage, or noncommercial leafleting.
• In response to a question about protest within venues, Mercer said, “My folk are not the t-shirt police.” He reported that VANOC at an SFU event had said that it is not concerned about t-shirt content. Mercer also referred to “the rules on the back of the ticket,” which govern what VANOC can enforce, and said V2010-ISU will back up that enforcement. Mercer saw banners as “a problem.” In his view, they inevitably “infringe on rights of others” – presumably by interfering with the ability to see.
• Private security is being provided by a consortium which made a bid of $91 million.

At one point Steve Sweeney delivered a small lecture about how a truly successful staging of the Games would be measured by visitors having no recollection at all of the policing effort. At another point Bud Mercer awkwardly broke the flow of his comment to pull out a copy of the recent report from the Civil Liberties Advisory Committee, to seek out a particular passage, and to read it aloud.

Bumbling Bylaw

Introduction

One bad shot can spoil a whole movie. Trying to fix up what its spinning reel has been projecting, the City of Vancouver did a big December retake of its omnibus Olympic bylaw.

On two previous occasions City Council grappled with putting this bylaw in place. On 22 January 2009 Council requested that the Province facilitate an Olympic bylaw by making 16 alterations to the Vancouver Charter. On 23 July 2009 Council rammed through 2010 Winter Games By-law No. 9908, only to repeal it in the circumstances outlined below.

For preceding episodes in this story, see Big Bylaw [30 July 2009] and Damage Control in Vancouver [28 October 2009].

 
The Technical Briefing

On the morning of 26 November 2009, the City of Vancouver held a technical briefing to preview its forthcoming Olympic bylaw, with remarks offered by a variety of staff. The information was presented as “off the record, no attribution.” The bylaw itself was not available at that stage.

The accompanying news release trumpets a concern for rights that was far from evident in July: New Games Bylaw Strengthens Language to Protect Rights. The news release incorporates a link to a pdf of eleven screens used in the November 26 backgrounder.

At the end of the morning Councillors Geoff Meggs and Ellen Woodsworth spoke on the record for about twenty minutes. Meggs persisted with the dismissive attitude that he displayed in July:

The city was never intending under any scenario to kick down doors and take fridge magnets off people’s fridges … or drill out their locks, or come in and tear off their t-shirts. … To be honest, I don’t see a big anti-Olympic movement.   [transcription from recording]

In other words, whatever the bylaw said, the intentions of City Council were all that mattered. (What else needs to be said when officials arrogate powers of decree?) Back in July, Meggs went on the offensive against criticisms made by the BC Civil Liberties Association, charging “it may be the BCCLA that is going too far.” Ellen Woodsworth was taken aback at finding out about the technical briefing only minutes before it started.

 
What Has Changed

The administrative report containing the new bylaw runs to 113 pages in pdf. The approach was to “repeal the Existing By-law, and enact the Proposed By-law” (p. 4 / pdf 4). Stated major changes include these provisions:

• All measures are to be temporary, with the one exception of a permanent increase to maximum fine under the Fire By-law
• The City Manager is no longer empowered to create new rules for a “city live site”
• Additional rules under the City Land Regulation By-law had been recommended to “apply to six city owned sites” (including the Central Branch of Vancouver Public Library). They now apply only to “the two LiveCity sites, LiveCity Downtown at Georgia and Beatty Streets and LiveCity Yaletown at David Lam Park, as celebration sites” (p. 7-8 / pdf 7-8)
• “The prohibition on causing a disturbance or nuisance that interferes with the enjoyment of entertainment at LiveCity sites” is replaced by “a prohibition against unreasonably interfering with the enjoyment of entertainment” (p. 8 / pdf 8)
• “Zone streets” are reduced in scope, except for the area added adjacent to the Vancouver Art Gallery, mainly on the south side [see further discussion of Robson Square below]
• A sharper distinction is made between commercial activities, advertising, and signs – and those that are not commercial (key provisions are the definition of “advertising matter” in Section 1.2 and the protocol for sign removal in Appendix D); the additional temporary measures are intended to apply only to the commercial instances

 
Public Space

In appended Schedules A, B, and C, the bylaw defines categories of public space.

• Schedule A is divided into three parts: (1) description of six “city sites” including the two “city live sites” (2) description of the two “city live sites” (3) description of Robson Square
• Schedule B – Description of Venues is subdivided into: 4 competition venues, 3 training venues, 9 non-competition venues, 11 support facilities, and 5 affiliated facilities – cultural olympiad
• Schedule C – Map of Venue or City Site Street Zones sets boundaries around 7 areas, all of them downtown except for Hillcrest and Pacific Coliseum

The categories do not relate in a simple way to levels of restriction and security, or transparently to application of particular bylaw measures.

Robson Square stands out as an oddity. It is given a separate heading in the discussion (p. 11-12 / pdf 11-12) preceding the bylaw:

The Province of British Columbia intends to use Robson Square as a celebration site during the Games. Planned activities include the installation of celebratory signs, live entertainment, television broadcast production and other Games-related programming.

Robson Square sticks out as a single case in Schedule A. When the bylaw came before Council on December 3, Robson Square was said to be a venue like a VANOC or LiveCity site. Ultimately it appears to be a provincial government site, with the City’s bylaw applying only to street situations. Steve Sweeney of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) said that Robson Square is “not a designated venue,” will not be under V2010-ISU, will have “no perimeter fencing,” and will be under “provincial security.” Sweeney was present as part of the staff available to present and explain to Council. This was his main contribution, and notable for that reason alone.

The provincial venue on the fourth floor of the Vancouver Art Gallery, to cost almost $4 million, slinked into view with little hoopla in mid-September. Perhaps the only media attention came from Rod Mickleburgh, who wrote:

The last-minute decision [by the federal government] leaves British Columbia scrambling to make do with a much-reduced Olympic pavilion slated for the fourth floor of the Vancouver Art Gallery.

It remains to be seen exactly what place the B.C. “pavilion” and Robson Square occupy among Olympic venues, and what levels of access restriction and security force will apply to them. In a December 2009 report the Civil Liberties Advisory Committee recommended

that the space between the Vancouver Art Gallery and West Georgia Street be left open to the public for the duration of the Olympics, without designating it as a protest zone. (3. Protests, pdf 2)

At City Council on the morning of 3 Dec 2009, City Manager Penny Ballem stated that the north side of the Vancouver Art Gallery “will not be programmed or secured in any way.”

The late-in-the-game designation of Robson Square and the Vancouver Art Gallery as special sites has produced a murky and singular situation. Robson Square may have even more potential to become ground zero for protest than Vancouver House ever did.

Since early March, Vancouver House had been destined for siting at the central branch of Vancouver Public Library – another public facility with a tradition of open access. Vancouver House underwent a sudden relocation at the end of July. That shift left clear traces of angst in its wake. The one that can be reported is a November letter from City Librarian Paul Whitney to the Georgia Straight. Whitney took the occasion of correcting an article by Carlito Pablo to declare “there are no plans that users of the Central Library … will experience ‘airport-style searches’.” As a senior city administrator, Whitney had to play along with the earlier but abandoned plan to subject the library to the highest level of security. Between the lines of his letter can be read a public sigh of relief.

 
At City Council on 3 Dec 2009

The new omnibus Olympics bylaw mirrored its schizophrenia in the way it proceeded through Council. As Item 2 on the morning agenda, it got off to a late start thanks to Item 1 (Snow and Ice Treatment Review). Presentation by staff and questions from councillors took most of the remainder of the morning (the meeting was extended by up to one hour). Chair Raymond Louie curtailed questioning to squeeze in the two speakers to the item: David Eby and Joseph Jones (my comment is provided as appendix below). The remainder of the consideration was referred to the end of the afternoon meeting, where it returned as Item 6.

The morning discussion brought out these details (additional to those on Robson Square presented above):

• Councillor David Cadman pressed the point on how art would be distinguished from graffiti. City staff referred to an existing mural program that requires a permit, with the comment that offenders would be advised of the opportunity to legitimize the art/graffiti. [A week later, the probable underlying story has hit the media. City inspectors forced a November 16 removal of an outdoor anti-Olympic piece displayed by the Crying Room at 157 E. Cordova St.]
• Penny Ballem said the City is looking for a venue for a Downtown Eastside flea market – presumably to remove the usual crowd on the Hastings Street sidewalk from the view of Olympic visitors.
• Councillor Geoff Meggs delighted in riffing off VPD officer Steve Sweeney’s comments to make a lame joke about how Victoria police had actually facilitated protest by driving a bus. [Reference to a recent remark by Victoria Police Chief Jamie Graham, reported by Bob Mackin on 2 Dec 2009.]
• David Eby requested that the Hastings corridor be excluded from bylaw ticketing so activities usual on that street would not be displaced to adjacent streets like Pender and Cordova. [No action taken.]
• Paul Henderson, in a starting revelation, stated that a celebratory sign should be considered as equivalent to a non-commercial sign, and that the word has no implications for content. [Yet the bylaw offers this definition: “ ‘celebratory sign’ means a sign that celebrates the 2010 Winter Games, and creates or enhances a festive environment and atmosphere for the 2010 Winter Games” (p. 2 / pdf 22)]
• David Eby viewed the changes to the July bylaw as “charter proofing,” meaning that egregious encroachments on rights and freedoms had been toned down to make legal challenge more difficult.
• Penny Ballem wangled her way among the protuberant teeth that have been left in the City Land Regulation By-law. She said that overarching goals are free access, economic development, and entertainment. To those ends, the bylaw aims to ensure “legitimate entertainment” and to preclude “huge disturbance” and “very disruptive” actions. [These qualifications are interesting. They suggest possible tolerance for minor disturbance and moderately disruptive actions.]

When Council returned to consideration of the bylaw in the later afternoon, Ballem directed several more comments toward the sensitive temporary additions to the City Land Regulation By-law. She stated that the concern was to mitigate liability and risk, and that “this is not about free speech.” “Protest literature” seems to be acceptable on LiveCity sites as long as there is no “litter.” She ranked the megaphone in with the bottle of alcohol as forbidden objects. A little later, she allowed that LiveCity sites could tolerate t-shirts, pamphlets and “talk” as reasonable activities, then hedging that these locations are “not a place for large demonstrations.”

In the end, Council passed the bylaw. The only change to what was published in the Administrative Report was addition of this wording, proposed by David Cadman, at the end of Recommendation A:

… with the specific proviso that none of these provisions are intended in any way to limit protests allowed under the Charter of Rights.

Negotiation for the Cadman addition does not appear in the minutes. City staff and the legal department objected to Ellen Woodsworth’s proposal to add that same wording to the preamble of the bylaw itself. That particular amendment, and what the minutes show as her five other proposed amendments, LOST, with only Woodsworth voting in favor.

Two of Woodsworth’s other defeated amendments merit repetition as background for the conclusion to follow:

• 1.   Page 28 – Add “except where that interference is the incidental effect of otherwise lawful protest” at the end of 4Ab.
• 2.   Page 2 – At the end of the “celebratory sign” definition, add “and includes signs whose content is critical of the 2010 Winter Games.”

 
Conclusion

Finding itself in a double bind between

• having agreed to hand the city over to the International Olympic Committee (IOC)
• needing to stave off a challenge to illegitimate bylaw encroachment on Charter rights and freedoms

the City of Vancouver seems out to have it both ways.

According to section 47 of the Host City Contract (2002) Vancouver has agreed to suppress both “propaganda” and “advertising.” (The provision of the Olympic Charter cited in the Host City Contract is found in section 51.)

The December bylaw, in contrast with the July bylaw, concentrates more specifically on commercial activities, advertising, and signs. Verbal comments from staff on the term celebratory and on the admissibility of critical t-shirts, pamphlets, and “talk” at city live sites suggests that enforcement may allow for protest that does “not unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of entertainment … by other persons” [4A(b)].

On the other hand, the attempt by Ellen Woodsworth to incorporate specific language on these two points into the bylaw itself met with resistance from city staff and rejection by all other councillors.

In the best case, the City of Vancouver has written the letter of its bylaw to satisfy IOC requirements for control of “propaganda,” while in practice intending to subvert that requirement through latitude and nonenforcement.

In the worst case, the City of Vancouver has paid lip service to rights and freedoms, particularly through the phrase added by David Cadman to the recommendations only (a phrase deliberately kept out of the preamble to the bylaw itself). During the Olympic event, actual enforcement can then eliminate all “propaganda” at the expense of rights and freedoms. By the time judicial process is able to consider the overreaching enforcement, the Games will be long past, and the temporary bylaw will have expired.

 
*     *     *

(In chronological order)

Geoff Meggs. “Reality check needed on human rights complaints for Olympics,” Vancouver Sun (25 July 2009)

Rod Mickleburgh. “B. C. to stand alone as Ottawa won’t partner on Canada pavilion,” Globe & Mail (16 Sept 2009)

Paul Whitney. “Event relocation averts ‘airport-style’ searches,” Georgia Straight 43:2186 (Nov. 12-19, 2009) 11

Rod Mickleburgh. “Vancouver dumps bylaw derided by activists as ‘Beijing 2.0’,” Globe & Mail (27 Nov 2009)

Bob Mackin. “Council bows to pressure,” 24 Hours Vancouver (27 Nov 2009) 1

Chris Shaw. “Civil rights advocates in Vancouver score three big victories this week,” Vancouver Observer (27 Nov 2009)

Damian Inwood. “Games bylaw redrawn, protest signs safe to be displayed,” Province (27 Nov 2009)

Kelly Sinoski. “Temporary bylaw would expand liquor hours, ban some ads during Games,” Vancouver Sun (27 Nov 2009) A13

Bob Mackin. “Police infiltrate Olympic resistance at torch relay,” 24 Hours Vancouver (2 Dec 2009) 1

Bob Mackin. “Six million dollars at stake,” 24 Hours Vancouver (4 Dec 2009) 3

Bob Mackin. “Civic Olympic bylaw passed,” 24 Hours Vancouver (4 Dec 2009) 6

Damian Inwood. “Olympics’ bylaws won’t curb speech, city says,” Province (4 Dec 2009)

 
*     *     *

Appendix:

Remarks of Joseph Jones to Vancouver City Council on December 3, 2009

The new bylaw version found in the 113-page report before you still aims to grant the extraterritorial International Olympic Committee an extreme degree of control over Vancouver public space. Meanwhile, the conclusion to the report (p. 14 / pdf 14) talks about “the right balance.”

A real right balance would direct far more interest toward Vancouver’s imperiled residents, and afford those residents more protections. Here is a digression to one brief example. In an East Vancouver house that normally shelters eight individuals, all of the renters have been served January 31st eviction notices. An advertisement to rent out the entire house for February-March 2010 demonstrates that the owner of the property is trying to latch onto the gravy train of greed, the greed that is the essence of the Olympic spirit. If anyone in this chamber would like notice of a press conference about this situation, please provide me your email address.

What remains of my few minutes will center on a contradiction that poisons the heart of the City Land Regulation Bylaw. The bylaw sets forth this convoluted proposition at 4A(a)(vi): “A person must not … bring onto a city live site any … anything that makes noise that interferes with the enjoyment of entertainment on a city live site by other persons.” (The syntax here befits the quality of the thought.) Then comes slight backpedalling at 4A(b): “A person must not unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of entertainment on a city live site by other persons.” Enforcement provisions follow at 4B(d): “The city may … prohibit access to, or remove from, a city live site any person who fails to comply with any requirement of section 4A.”

Free speech means being seen and being heard. This proposed bylaw makes almost no provision for criticism to be heard at city sites. Leave aside the forbidden megaphone, that puny competitor to massive amplification systems. Any voice that authorities consider to “unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of entertainment” will suffer exclusion at the outset, or get thrown out on its ear, or be hauled off to jail.

The overwhelming physical extent of the IOC incursion into Vancouver is detailed in Schedules A, B, and C of the proposed Olympic bylaw. A genuine balance to this alien occupation demands all the free speech that critics can summon.

You should either strike out every reference to balance in this bylaw, or you should write honest balance into the bylaw.

You cannot stir the fudge pot on the stove with one hand, and at the same time use the other hand to plaster the fridge with free speech magnets. [Allusion to on-the-record comment made by Geoff Meggs at the Technical Briefing on 26 Nov 2009.] Your fudge is not sweet.

*     *     *