APEC – Commission Interim Report
Complainants' counsel allege that there was "an unprecedented RCMP crackdown on student demonstrations" on the UBC campus on November 25 and the days immediately preceding. Counsel's closing written submission outlines the basis for this allegation by posing a rhetorical question:
How is it that a prominent student activist was snatched off the street and spirited away in an unmarked car the day before the leaders' visit, that paper and cardboard signs expressing dissent were snatched from students, that a law student was tackled, handcuffed and imprisoned for merely declining to relinquish his sign, that a Tibetan flag, a powerful symbol of freedom and an irritant to the Chinese government, was removed from a campus building contrary to a prior agreement with the RCMP command, that students were arrested and imprisoned for apparently doing nothing more than using radios or megaphones, that accredited members of the press were stripped of their media accreditation because they were "sympathetic" to the protesters, that patently unlawful release conditions were imposed on some of those arrested, and that noxious weapons were used repeatedly and indiscriminately to disperse peaceful gatherings of students?
Each of the eight scenarios recited within that question are reflected in the 17 categories of complaints, each of which is individually addressed in this report. Counsel then asks:
Did these events occur because Canada's revered national police force was ill-prepared, poorly trained, unfamiliar with Canadian law and overzealous? Or is the explanation more disturbing – that the Canadian government, anxious to make a good impression on at least one dictator who made it clear that his visit and future bilateral relations depended on the suppression of demonstrations, created a climate in which visible displays of dissent would not be tolerated?
I have concluded that some instances of RCMP conduct complained of were not appropriate to the circumstances. I have further concluded that in some of those instances the conduct was not consistent with respect for the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The conduct that I have found to be inappropriate, taken as a whole, does present the appearance of a police "crackdown" on student demonstrations at UBC. Without adopting the precise language quoted above, I conclude that Complainants' counsel have correctly identified the two most likely explanations for that conduct. In other words, either:
- aspects of police performance on and around November 25 fell below an acceptable and expected standard of competence, professionalism and proficiency; or
- the Canadian government, motivated by political considerations involving appeasement of then President Suharto of Indonesia, signalled to the RCMP, either overtly or otherwise, that they ought to perform as they did in order to curtail demonstrations and stamp out visible dissent.
Complainants' counsel contend that the second explanation accounts for the events complained of. Hundreds of the hours that they were on their feet and volumes of their written submissions were devoted to pursuing that second explanation. Scant attention was paid to the alternative.
I turn now to address the issue of political intervention in the planning for security for November 25, and the impact that had on events.