This is a tale of two photographs.
The above photograph is entitled Tamil Protest on the Gardiner and is by Neil McIntyre. It is used in accordance with his Creative Commons license.
Much ink has been spilt over the move by hundreds of Tamil-Canadians, protesting our government’s inaction while the Sri Lankan civil war takes a turn for the worse for the Tamils there, to march onto the Gardiner Expressway and snarl traffic throughout downtown Toronto for several hours on a Sunday evening. A fair chunk of it is full of shock and outrage that these individuals would have the temerity to block a highway, and cost Sunday drivers a few hours of (admittedly, significant) inconvenience. Among the more hysterical screeds to be found online is the horror that the Tamils, expressing support for “terrorists”, were using their women and children as human shields against the cars.
Let’s be clear: what the protesters did was patently illegal, and they did risk life and property through their reckless actions. If charges are laid against organizers of this protest, I think that’s fair and just. However, I think we should ramp down the rhetoric. I mean, ‘human shields’? Come on!
The weirdest thing about the whole event and its aftermath is that this isn’t the first time protesters have shut down the Gardiner Expressway. I can recall two other incidents where this Toronto arterial was taken offline this past decade alone. There was, for instance, a march by Native protesters against the then Liberal government, I believe, over the slow pace of progress in redressing the various injustices committed by our government against aboriginal Canadians. This, I believe, got some ink — perhaps not as much as when another group of aboriginal protesters shut down the 401 in Eastern Ontario, but some. However, the incident quickly blew over.
Then there was the time that dozens, if not hundreds, of cycling activists participating in a “critical mass” rally decided en masse to swarm up the Jarvis Street onramp and onto the Gardiner Expressway, eventually taking over every westbound lane until the police were able to funnel these people off the highway via the Dunn Street offramp, seven kilometres to the west. The event remarkably went without incident, with hardly any confrontations between the cyclists and irate drivers. One person was arrested for the stunt, and only because he refused to follow police orders to get off the highway; two more were ticketed.
This event occurred almost a year ago, on a Friday evening at the end of rush hour, which suggests that the potential for disruption as a result could have been significantly higher.
And how much ink was spilled on this protest? How much spit was flecked by people in their outrage? Hardly any as far as I can see. And, get a load of this picture below courtesy Nick Syperek of TOBike, and used with permission.
Are those… children I see biking at the front of this photograph? Are those women and children? Oh, my God, are those (gasp!) human shields?! How dare they!
And that’s precisely the outrage I didn’t hear following this earlier stunt that’s all over the place when a group of ethnic Canadians decide to protest horrible events at home.
Which begs the question: why was so little ink spilt on these earlier events that’s now been spilt on this recent event? Why was the accusation of the use of women and children as “human shields” raised now rather than the time before?
May 13, 2009 11:57 PM
I think you make a valid point. It appears that political and racial filters are colouring the media’s reactions to this event.
However, I suspect that the actual traffic-impact of a roughly 25 minute slowdown of the Gardiner was fairly mild in comparison with the more recent total shutdown.
Then one has to consider that the Critical Mass Gardiner event was unscheduled, largely unexplained, and followed no media build-up.
In contrast the recent event was purposeful, in support of a well-defined political cause, and followed weeks of intense media attention.
Clearly, it was effective, gaining the Tamil community some concessions from major political figures. Perhaps that is the source of the fear you are seeing in the media coverage; a marginal group has begun to escape marginalization using non-violent protest. That is not supposed to work anymore!
I am tired of Canada the war-monger, I never voted for any such role for my country and neither did a clear majority of Canadians.
I support the Tamils quest for a peacemaking Canada!
-Nick
May 14, 2009 6:49 AM
I am at a loss as to what the Tamil protesters want Canada to do. Sri Lanka is an independent country and a civil war is an internal matter; Canada doesn’t have the right to intervene militarily on either side. Canada and the UN have already requested that civilians be protected and the Sri Lankan army has refrained from shelling and bombing civilian targets. I guess we could send observers but both sides would have to agree to that. We could put pressure on both sides to let the civilians leave the area of fighting. I understand that the Sri Lankan government is welling but the Tamil Tigers are not welling to let the civilians leave the area and the Tigers are in fact recruiting children as young as 10 to fight. I also understand that Tamils not in that area are not in danger and not in need of protection. Again I ask what more do the protesters want the Canadian government to do?
May 14, 2009 9:07 AM
It’s far worse than just those two incidents. Truck drivers and farmers, the latter often organized by Ontario PC leadership candidate Randy Hillier, have routinely blockaded highways over the past few years. There was almost no reaction to those events by the now frothing media.
Realistically there isn’t much Canada can do but our government’s reaction shouldn’t be, “Sorry, we saw some objectionable flags at your protest so we’re not even going to meet with you to discuss your concerns.” Oh well, at least they can’t claim they’re being treated any differently by this Conservative government than nearly every other Canadian.
May 14, 2009 10:17 AM
I remember there was a similar reaction to the critical mass event, except that it was all over in one day. The Tamil’s protests have been disrupting downtown traffic for weeks and they continue to do so, giving more opportunity for people to complain about them.
May 14, 2009 2:03 PM
“Why was the accusation of the use of women and children as “human shields” raised now rather than the time before?”
Perhaps because Toronto cyclists don’t have a reputation for using their members as human shields whereas the Tamil Tigers do.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/human-rights-watch/tamil-tigers-use-civilianb187704.html
It’s the LTTE flags displayed by these protesters that brings their actions into question and disrepute.
From everything I’ve read the LTTE seem to be as vile a bunch of thugs as ever drew breath.
May 14, 2009 9:08 PM
The weird thing about the women and children statement (with or without the human shields part) is that it implies that the speaker would, or thinks other people would, make a different decision about whether to hit the protesters with their car if the protesters were all adult males.
(And even if you were a completely self-absorbed egotist didn’t care one whit about whether you kill protesters but for some bizarre sense of chivalry, surely it would make such a mess of your car that it isn’t worth your while.)
May 15, 2009 1:05 PM
The protest is legitimate enough — closing down a highway for an afternoon isn’t too terrible a burden, though I bet it didn’t help the image of the protestors or their cause.
But so is the Canadian government telling them to get bent — the Tamil community of the GTA supplies the majority of the funding for the Tigers. They should get some bad press for that.
“Human shields” rhetoric is a little over the top though. Just call them “terror supporters” and leave it at that.
May 15, 2009 2:20 PM
I was on the Critical Mass ride and we were using children as human shields and then afterwards we ate the entrails of rich people on bay st. Man they were good. I would say if my cousins and uncles and grandmothers I would be doing everything possible to bring it to the attention of anyone who would listen. One last thing to remember is that the United States was started by terrorists, they just called themselves revolutionaries. One person’s freedom fighter is another persons terrorist.
May 19, 2009 7:03 PM
James, you’re absolutely right. I’ve been to dozens of protests either as a participant or observer and there were always children for all kinds of reasons, but teaching the children an early lesson in civics was certainly one of the reasons I liked best. How better to teach them about institutional or police abuse of power, racism, discrimination, or concern about the environment? Yes, some parents had no choice but to take their children along, or not attend. But most took their children along as part of life’s lessons.
I have to disagree with a couple of sentences though: “This, I believe, got some ink — perhaps not as much as when another group of aboriginal protesters shut down the 401 in Eastern Ontario, but some. However, the incident quickly blew over.”
The OPP shut down 401 as a pre-emptive blockade in reaction to the threat - repeat, threat - by Mohawk Shawn Brant of Tyendinaga to do the same near the town of Deseronto. CN suspended its service along the main line between Montreal and Toronto the day before Brant had threatened to block the railway too. Brant had blocked the railway before so the threat was serious.
As for long- or short-term effects, Brant is being sued by CN for more than $10-million so the issue will continue to be in the courts (and before politicians) for years to come. The issue, by the way, is a dysfunctional system of addressing complaints about or violations of treaties and land agreements with First Nations. Even folks at the almost moribund Assembly of First Nations in Ottawa have credited Brant’s actions with “moving the goal posts” on this issue, or at the very least focussing sustained national attention on these long-simmering grievances. Brant’s actions showed a lot of chiefs that they were wasting time waiting for governments to get their butts to the negotiating tables.
For the record, there are almost always children at these types of actions for the reasons I stated off the top. Parents teach their children about standing up for their rights or against injustices. They would consider anyone who accused them of using their children as shields as insulting idiots.
May 20, 2009 12:51 AM
“Yes, some parents had no choice but to take their children along, or not attend. But most took their children along as part of life’s lessons.”
I wrote about this at stage left… another consideration that people (especially those involved in direct action protests wrt native rights) is that bringing children to political protests is one way for the people you are protesting to paint a target on your back. It’s a common aspect of corrupt governments on reserve to use reports of child-abuse, neglect etc — against people who dare to stand up against the Indian Act leaders. It’s a VERY big part of why I have never advised or encouraged people to bring their kids — it can be (and as we see here from the comments of some people) will be used against you to claim you are unfit parents.
As I said on Stage Left… it all depends on the kind of protest…. and there are lots of different varieties of protest.
In general — any protest where organizers have set out to NOT inconvenience people OR to break any laws — is a bad idea to get children involved in…
On the whole — large gatherings of people who are all upset about something — seems like a risky place to bring kids… If you’ve ever seen or been in a mob that got crazy violent —- you’d definately think twice about bringing kids - I think as well.
I think it’s really really important to put protests and the actions of parents involved into a full and proper context before rushing to judgement about them.
May 20, 2009 11:59 AM
I think my mother, if she were alive, would disagree with you. I know my sisters do. I’ve asked. They don’t disagree with the need to use great caution when children are involved. They disagree on letting fear rule, on the assumption that something might happen at peaceful demonstrations. They would never knowingly put their children into a dangerous situation, but they insist that their children must understand the world as it is around them.
You may disagree. That’s your parental right, for your children.