Mike also took this video as he arrived at the end of the ride.

Jim also has sent more photos.

I would have taken at least a couple more photos if I didn’t have camera battery problems.

—

This ride was linked with a climate justice day of action — which you can read about at the end of this Ecojustice Declaration.
(Here are ways those links were made locally.)

This is what San Francisco campaigners did for the day of action that our ride was linked to.

The local climate justice group here also has links with the Mobilization for Climate Justice.

For more information, see this invitation, and this camp publication.

The main campaign around the climate camp is a way of blocking tar sands expansion, while helping out local victims, at the same time. The pipeline project cuts across Maine, Quebec, Ontario, Michigan, Illinois, and other surrounding areas — so there are plenty of points of intervention, and plenty of grounds for solidarity.

These photo sets are from the “convergence days” between August 18th and August 22nd.

Our climate camp was one of several during 2010; here is a list of 2010 climate camp web sites, in various Anglo and European countries.

===

In the first photo there are signs that say ‘No dirty oil in our territory’ and  ‘climate action camp’ (in French).  The banners in other photos say ‘Change the system, not the climate’ (in French), ’stop the wave of destruction’ (in French), “CO2lonialism”, and ‘Change the system! Not the climate!’ “Trailbreaker = Tar sands”.

Our tents we were on a cowfield which the cows had been temporary moved away from.  Most of the cow patties were cleared away too.  Some people hadn’t arrived yet when the tent field photo in this set was taken.

Two forest workshop spaces are visible in these photos.  Other workshop tents also can be seen in the photos — along with a few of the workshops.

A tool tent is visible behind the soccer game.

In the Infoshop there were flyers, posters, books, sign-up sheets, and other materials.  The pirate flag on the infoshop is about Canadian mining.

Food was prepared collectively in the makeshift kitchen.

The kitten was our mascot “CJ” — as in Climate Justice (in English).  The bike bloc group rescued the kitten from a rural road during their 9-hour journey from Montreal to the camp site.  For a couple of days, the kitten spent a lot of time in the wood pallet at the entrance to the kitchen.

See the individual photo posts on Flickr for more details.

===

This August 22nd tar sands protest was organized in Dunham, Quebec, for the last day of the climate camp convergence.  This protest was part of the Trailbreaker campaign against tar sands piping and pumping through Quebec.

After brief statements from activists, we embarked on a march along rural roads, toward the site of a proposed pumping station.  We chanted, we sang, and we did a collective dance. We also performed what we called a “human oil spill.”  That spill was somewhat like a quick die-in — but with some more playful theatre.  One protestor also had a tub drum, and another played a harmonica.

After the march — at the site of the possible tar sands pumping station — speakers talked about tar sands issues, while food was prepared and eaten.  Some of us prepared the corn together there.  Francophone and indigenous perspectives were important sides of that gathering.

During the protest, people started to sign on to this tar sands pledge of resistance, which others now can join online.  Signatures were collected on French and English paper copies of the pledge, which you can see in the photos.

The trash bags were our oily costumes for the protest.  One guy also wore a funnel on his head, with black waste bag plastic coming out of it.  A couple of people also had yellow climate crime scene tape wrapped around themselves.

The “coalition” sign says ‘pipeline coalition’ (in French).

The “danger” sign is about the Enbridge pipeline which already is in place.

It was cloudy and mucky that day, and it was raining.  The protest site also wasn’t directly beside our camp space — which posed another challenge for us.

A week earlier, on August 15th, there was another climate camp protest against the pumping station that may be set up in Dunham.  Here is a photo set, and a video (in French).

See the individual photo posts on Flickr for some additional details about the protest.

Since the G20 Summit in Toronto, activists here in London, Ontario (Canada) have organized a series of protests against the Summit policing regime. Below I’ll offer some photos, video links, and written background about our protests.  First, here are some points about other campaigning and organizing here in London (Ont.) -

Local activists released a statement about Summit policing and detention conditions in Toronto, and the local climate justice group that I’m part of has sent out a connected statement about oil and civil liberties.  Through those statements we have pointed out links between London and the Toronto Summit, and we have shown how the G20 police regime is bound up with much wider neoliberalism, fossil fuel systems, and other large-scale problems.

More than anything, activists here have been demanding civil liberties that were attacked at the Summit.

Civil liberties petition signatures have been collected, and a flyer about civil liberties has been distributed here.  We have brought copies with us as we have used a projector to display video footage of G20 police brutality on walls for crowds at public events. Here is a post about the first of those projection protests, at a Canada Day fireworks show.

A legal defence fundraiser music show also was organized at a local arts co-operative here, and some defence funds were collected at a recent rally.

The major common thread across all of this mobilizing has been our condemnation of G20 Summit policing.  Otherwise, our perspectives and messages haven’t been entirely identical.  Above all, we have disagreed about how we should approach the smashing and burning from the black bloc at the Summit. The Toronto black bloc hasn’t received much vocal support from around here, and various locals have condemned them, in one way or another.  We also have had different views about the benefits that may or may not come from a formal inquiry into the Summit policing.  There are people (a small minority, I’d say) who expect such an inquiry to be worthless. I’m not one of those people, but others do have higher hopes for inquiry outcomes.

Questions like those have come up at a couple of discussion get-togethers here. Yet, there has been very little in the way of public dialogue or statements about these issues and events over the past couple of weeks in London, so our disagreements haven’t been lively in public. People still are posting the odd web links though (on Facebook, at least), and a London chapter of Canadians Demanding a Public Inquiry into Toronto G20 has been formed, so those activists may organize more fightback campaigning. But, since our July 17th rally, there has been a lull in our local campaigning against the G20 police regime. Petitioning at the July 24th queer pride parade here is one exception, and it really is too soon to say what activists here will do in the future, but it does seem as though the campaigning may be tapering off.

In any case, Londoners certainly will be connected to ongoing fightback battles through lawyers, and through professionalized, bureaucractic campaign organizations.  There also will be ongoing links to campaigning from the Toronto Community Mobilization Network, for as long as they are organizing as a post-Summit fightback coalition.

These battles around the 2010 Toronto G20 Summit policing may still be going on years from now — if only until the end of all of the trials, and the legal crackdowns associated with them.

===

London, Ontario rallies after the G20 Summit in Toronto

Here are photos from the series of protests that have been organized in London (so far).  There is written background, videos, and other links on the Flickr photo set pages linked to below, and on some of the individual photos in those sets.

—

June 30th

Protesting police brutality at the local police station

The local action call-out was titled “All Out Against Police Brutality! In Solidarity with the Toronto 900!”

(That was before we realized that more than 1000 people were arrested.)

Common Cause called the day of action, and the local protest.

—

July 1st: Canada Day

“Take back Canada on Canada Day” protest — in a public park, where Canada Day celebrations were underway

During our theatrical protesting that day, we mainly were recreating this scene.  Yet, we had the police outnumber the protestors to show what the streets were like in Toronto during most of the Summit.

—

July 7th

A police station vigil against G8/G20 police sexual violence in Toronto

Our rally revolved around this account of sexual violence from police at the Summit detention centre.

—

July 17th

Civil liberties rally and march

During this day of action we had a rally at a city hall, before we marched to the police station, where we had a brief follow-up rally.

———-

Update -

Here’s some of what I’ve said to local activists as I’ve sent out the Media Co-op version of this post -

If anyone wants to add to or challenge anything I’ve said in there, then go for it.
You can post comments on the post, and you don’t necessarily need an account on the site to do so.

No one appointed me as some sort of spokesperson for us, and no one is going to appoint you either. If you want to give your take on our activism, then do that.

As I was writing the post I also updated the summaries on the Flickr pages. There now are links to the videos from the protests, for instance.

The writing on the Co-op site is meant to be a basic, impartial summary… which took more words than I had expected or planned.

Some sort of overview seemed necessary though. There has been some great organizing around here since the Summit, and it’s not every decade that the ‘world leaders’ terrorize activists in the area with Summit police tactics; it’s not over, and there’s still a lot to mull over and talk about.

Members of our group took to the streets around the G20 Summit in Toronto with concerns about climate change, the Alberta tar sands, assaults on native sovereignty, and other environmental injustices. The Summit police in Toronto threatened, searched, arrested, and detained Climate Justice London activists, while other local climate justice activists stayed away from Toronto to avoid the G20 police regime. Our dissent was not permitted at the Summit. In fact, anyone who was outdoors in downtown Toronto was a potential target for the snatch squads, the riot cops, the mounted horse brigades, and thousands of other police at the Summit.  Our allies and our friends were pulled into this ‘security’ sweep, and all of us are left wondering which of the local police officers we encounter have brought their G20 summit training and hostility back to our cities.

Because we condemn this trampling of civil liberties, and because we always will call for democracy and social justice, members of our group have taken on leading roles in preparing a statement about police conduct and detention conditions at the G20 summit in Toronto.  People for Peace (London) activists helped to develop that London-specific version of the original statement from Toronto.  We hope that more Londoners will sign on to communicate their support.

Threats to our civil liberties will make it even more difficult to continue campaigning against environmental injustices — in a non-violent manner, without destructive sabotage tactics.

More than anyone, the people who need more freedom and more capacity to resist are residents of the front lines of water pollution, oil refineries, and other unjust environmental devastation — in native communities near the Alberta tar sands, in Sarnia, in Nanticoke, in southwest Detroit, and elsewhere, in far too many other areas of the world.  The rest of us also will need more (not less) ways and more resources to support those victims, by challenging the industries, policies, and oppression behind the Alberta tar sands, and other fossil fuel systems.

Yet, the federal government has been aligning with those petro-industries.  The Prime Minister and the ‘Environment’ Minister are based out of Calgary, Alberta — the leading centre of oil money in this country.  And Calgary petro-finances are much more intertwined with the ruling faction of the Conservative Party, given roots in the former Reform Party, which was, more than anything, a vehicle for Calgary oil money.

Liberals around Ignatieff also are among the officials who have been vocal supporters of the Alberta tar sands — and thus, intensified carbon emissions, rampant air and water pollution, rapid deforestation, and absurd amounts of energy and water wastage.  Such devastation extends much farther, given a web of pipelines, shipping, ‘refineries,’ and other such tentacles of the tar sands industry.  The Trailbreaker pipeline may well pump tar sands bitumen right through the London area, as this sludge is sent to and from ‘refineries’ in the region.

To defend all of these tar industry operations, Alberta’s premier and his associates already have deemed tar sands campaigners ‘terrorists.’ Even the professionalization and resources of Greenpeace have not been enough to prevent such attacks.  Environmental activists often are more vulnerable to this backlash, since we rely more on banner-drops, die-ins, and other direct action tactics that help us to make distant and systemic issues more visible and tangible.  In the future, rhetoric about ‘eco-terrorism’ likely will be used to ‘justify’ surveillance or arrests of tar sands campaigner targets, who certainly have already been threatened.  It’s a huge understatement to say that corporate liberties trump civil liberties in this country.

Any democracy in Canada was already under attack before the Toronto Summit.  The unilateral proroguing of the federal parliament is one aspect and outcome of these anti-democratic shifts.  The outrageous expenses and police force build-up around the G20 summit are a more extreme case, which still is unfolding — while unpopular Canadian military interventions in the oil-rich Middle East are prolonged.  Ultimately, Canada seems to be heading into authoritarianism and corruption which is similar to conditions in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and other countries in which extractive industries are leading centres of national cash flow, which props up industry and state regimes.  (Some people describe those international trends as a “resource curse.”)  Lobbying, revolving doors between industry and government, and oil subsidies are three of the sides of Canada’s petro-regime. For instance: federal officials, acting across Party lines, recently cancelled an 18-month investigation into tar sands water pollution, for example. Drafts of the report were destroyed.

At the G20 Summit, fossil fuel subsidies and carbon emissions were defended behind closed doors.  Canadian officials successfully evaded commitments for constructive change, while (for the most part) dodging public scrutiny of their meetings behind the fence.  If we had a strong climate justice movement, we could take advantage of the fact that Canadian officials barely are hiding behind the rosy PR gestures which are staples of Summits for our ‘world leaders.’

As we look back on the G20 Summit in Toronto, it also is important to remember that tar sands money, in particular, has been a huge part of Canada’s economic standing among G20 countries, and on the world stage.  Banksters and financiers see Alberta as a (dirty) investment bonanza, and Canadian officials certainly aren’t standing in their way.

The Alberta tar sands should be viewed as another of various major mining operations that are based out of Canada — at the expense of many vulnerable communities in Canada, and abroad.  While billions upon billions are invested into tearing up Alberta, companies based in Canada are international mining industry leaders, destroying communities and environments in Ecuador, Chile, Papua New Guinea, and beyond.  These industrial assaults must not be allowed to continue.

CLIMATE JUSTICE NOW!

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NOW!

————————-

That statement basically is an effort to situate the G20 policing regime and the ongoing fightback campaigning from activists in a climate justice frame. When these words were sent out — just after July 17th — there was more regional mobilizing for legal defence, to call for an inquiry into G20 Summit policing, and so on.  Those battles could be drawn out for years, and the wider fossil fuel issues covered in the statement will be at the centre of more and more struggles in upcoming decades.  Conflicts around pipelines and tar sands operations certainly are escalating in Canada and the U.S.

Indigenous oppression and struggles aren’t covered so well in the statement, and other important interconnections between fossil fuel systems and injustices aren’t communicated in there — though the related “London call” statement addresses some of that inequality.

Climate justice is made up of a much wider array of goals, principles, concerns, and mobilizing, but I think the statement covers a lot of ground for a local activist group, organizing in a city that certainly is no hot bed of radicalism (see below).  The fossil fuel issues raised in the statement also recieve next to no attention around here, so the write-up is at least a good starting point.

On behalf of the climate justice group, I presented a shorter and more informal version of the statement at a civil liberties rally on July 17th.

At first, the statement was a way of connecting a July 17th tar sands day of action to a civil liberties day of action on the same day. Then the statement became something more.

I was the one who actually wrote it, but I didn’t do that alone. There was some collective dialogue behind it, among activists here who had gone to the Summit in Toronto.

The written version of the statement has been re-posted on a couple of international web sites (namely, Climate & Capitalism and the Energy Bulletin), and it has been sent out through some other channels; so it was worth writing.  And, by composing it for the group, I could send it out without feeling like I was promoting myself in an opportunistic or otherwise self-absorbed way.

Before and after the statement was finished, I gave some thought to how London, Ontario is similar to Calgary, Alberta. Earlier this year, those two cities were the only placeswhere Ann Coulter spoke during a Canadian tour. Looking further back: Imperial Oil happens to have had its first headquarters here in London (Ont.). (Here’s a corporate version of that history.) One of the first commercial oil wells in the world was drilled near London, and there was an oil economy boom town around here called “Petrolia”. According to the Wikipedia page about that town, “oil men from Petrolia travelled to the far reaches of the world (Gobi Desert, Arctic, Iran, Indonesia, USA, Australia, Russia, and over 80 other countries) teaching others how to find and extract crude oil.”  Petro-industries were relocated to nearby Sarnia, Ontario.  In addition to these oil connections with Alberta, there is some common racism and fascism as well. There is a neo-nazi circle in London (Ont.), and Alberta seems to have relatively more of those sorts of people and activities.  So, in general, there are links in terms of different forms of conservatism in these two areas of Canada.

====================

[The preamble]

Local activists have prepared this London, Ontario version of the Toronto statement about police tactics at the G20 Summit there. We believe it is important for Londoners to present a unified voice to demand the civil liberties that were attacked in Toronto.

We invite signatures from anyone living, campaigning, or working in London, Ontario, or elsewhere in the nearby region.

Our statement is an abbreviated version of the original Toronto call – with added points about links between London activists, London police, and the Toronto summit. (These added points are in paragraph three, and demands 6 and 7, at the end of the statement.) The original Toronto statement basically offers a more detailed summary of events in Toronto in late June.

We also have made one addition to the text from the Toronto call. In the following sentence, we have changed the words “harassment by police” to “harassment and sexual violence from police” -
“The reports of those released from detention reveal a pervasive pattern of sexual, gender, trans, homophobic and racist harassment and sexual violence from police.”

If you want to SIGN ON to the London, Ontario statement, PLEASE WRITE TO theLondoncall@gmail.com and include your name and affiliation (as you would want it in the final version), and the category you prefer to be placed in (trade unionists, activists, arrested and detained, legal workers, teachers, cultural workers, students, etc). We ask you to sign on as soon as possible. We will be collecting signatures from individuals, and from groups and organizations.

The signature list will be released in waves. The first release will be sent out in advance of the July 17th day of action for civil liberties.

We believe it is possible to shift the terms of the debate, and to shine a spotlight on the abusive police practices during the G8/G20. But we need your help to do that.

Here’s the London statement -

—————–

The London Call: No More Police State Tactics

The police response to the protests against the G8/G20 in Toronto was the largest mass arrest in Canadian history, and the most far-reaching single assault on political rights in the Canadian state since the War Measures Act of 1970.

This response fits the pattern of militarized policing at global summits, which consistently produces mass arrests. It also builds on long histories of police brutality in this city and across Canada, particularly aimed at people of colour, indigenous peoples, and poor communities. The use of these police state methods is increasing as the social divides produced by neoliberal policies deepen.

Many of the London, Ontario police apparently were assigned to the G20 summit “security” forces. And London residents were among thousands of individuals who were threatened, detained, searched, and/or arrested by G20 summit police. Local activists also were arrested in London on June 15th for putting up posters to promote the mobilizations against the G8/G20. Despite the free speech rights supposedly protected by the Charter, local police responded to local postering by holding these activists overnight, before subjecting them to restrictive bail conditions. One of these activists since has been singled out by Toronto police, who have been trying to portray a small group of Canadians as property damage “ringleaders.” Others with ties to London have been among this set of activists, who police have held for several days, while threatening to press various fabricated charges (for supposed conspiracy, for example).

The ground for brutal policing in Toronto was prepared by extraordinary legislation passed in secret by the Ontario government, which misled the public regarding the designated G20 security zone. As part of the $1 billion security buildup, there was a massive police presence on the streets of Toronto, beginning days before the summit. This militarized police presence then escalated in the lead-up to the weekend.

On Saturday, June 26, the mass arrest of protesters began. The pretext for this crackdown was the limited property damage in protests that day, which was similar to recent hockey riots in various cities but treated very differently. We believe it is important to openly discuss and debate the effectiveness of various tactics used in activist mobilizations. However, the key issue remains the security build-up and police response that was completely out of proportion to Saturday’s events. Over the course of the weekend, more than 1000 people were detained. Activists were arrested in their homes or grabbed on the streets by police snatch squads. These targeted arrests reveal a disturbing degree of racial profiling of both residents and visitors to Toronto, consistent with ongoing police practices. Peaceful protestors also were beaten by police and shot with rubber bullets and tear gas “muzzle blasts”. Scores of protestors and bystanders were penned in for long periods by police.

In the week leading up to the summit, officials conveyed a focus on “anarchists” in this security crackdown. This simplistic targeting of a long-standing political tradition was further used by police to justify assaults on all demonstrators as well as the round-up of activists by claiming they were hunting for the “Black Bloc” This criminalization of activists aimed to silence attempts to address the real issues presented by the G20.

It is clear that long-term police plans, including the heavy infiltration of activist organizations, were at work in the mass arrests on Saturday and Sunday. The closure of many public institutions, including the University of Toronto, attempted to create a ghost town in the core of the city to facilitate the arrest of activists.

Statements by the Mayor of Toronto and Chief of Police have focused on labeling non-Torontonians as the source of disturbances. The image of “dangerous outsiders” draws on racial and ethnic stereotypes and suggests that it is not legitimate for people from outside Toronto to exercise their rights to political expression, free association and freedom of movement. The G20 is a global assault that requires global solidarity in response.

The hundreds who were detained faced dismal and abusive conditions. People were held in overcrowded cages and denied access to food, water, and legal counsel. Friends and families did not have access to information about who was detained or when they might be processed or released. The reports of those released from detention reveal a pervasive pattern of sexual, gender, trans, homophobic and racist harassment and sexual violence from police.

This assault on civil and political rights must never be allowed to happen again.

To contact us, send an e-mail to: theLondoncall@gmail.com

We the undersigned call for:

1. The immediate release of all those detained.

2. A full campaign to defend the civil rights of those facing charges arising from this extraordinary policing regime, especially those facing excessive charges and/or punitive bail conditions that criminalize, limit mobility, and curtail rights in the long term.

3. An independent public inquiry into police actions during the summit, including disclosure on the role of police infiltrators leading up to and during events, and the chain of command for the extraordinary crackdown on legal rights and protests.

4. An end to the targeting of anarchists by the Conservative government and the police.

5. The resignation of Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair.

6. The issuing of an immediate public apology by the London Police Service for its role in targeting activists and criminalizing dissent.

7. A public account of the role of London police in Toronto operations during the G20 summit, as well as subsequent protests in Toronto.

Most of the photos are from me. (The ones that I posted are here and here)

There were a various actions against the tar sands that day. People out in London, England even joined the action.  Here in Canada, RBC (the Royal Bank of Canada) was the main Fossil Fool target. That bank is the leading financier behind the tar sands.

Compared with other local campaigning against RBC tar sands financing here, there was a lot more tension at the protest at the first RBC bank building we went to on the Fossil Fools day of action. Just leafletting inside an RBC building has been enough to get us into a confrontation (of sorts) with police though. Security staff and police officers always are at hand to defend corporations like RBC by preventing people from voicing concerns on company property.

That said, I still don’t appreciate conflicts (or potential conflicts) with police and security staff. That sort of excitement doesn’t work for me, and I’m generally not hostile towards police officers and security workers.  There are a lot of problems police/security systems — given how they are bound up with a much wider status quo — but I don’t find targetting police and security workers to be a productive way of confronting those problems.  We’ve got to find ways to change and replace the mainstream systems that employ those people. If there are no dirty banks (for instance), then the police and security forces can’t defend them.

That statement is a response to an e-mail (quoted at the bottom of that page) from a ‘Free’ Press organization.

Here’s a bit more background -
The ‘Free’ Press Society (which was backing the Ann Coulter in Canada events) had sent out hundreds of event RSVP e-mails by mistake. The Countering Coulter blog then was set up to take advantage of that opportunity to reach people who had RSVPed for the event here in London, Ontario, Canada. Someone out here sent those people a message (much like this post) to ask them whether they would want to use the blog to communicate their concerns about the Coulter in Canada event in London, Ontario. After a guy from the ‘Free’ Press organization sent out an insulting and confusing rant about that e-mail and that Countering Coulter blog — in a message to the same e-mail addresses — I put together the reply on the blog page that I’ve linked to above.

In that writing I tried to hint at the limited effectiveness of blogging and e-mailing in general. Online activism and dialogue (via Twitter, and Facebook, and so on) are very overrated, and I didn’t mean to reinforce the rhetoric and false hopes about ‘digital revolution’ and ‘digital democracy’ (Here are some relevant posts.)

To put this another way -
Free speech only can happen when there already is equality and justice in our everyday lives (with or without digital technologies).

On that Countering Coulter blog, it also should be clear that I wasn’t approaching free speech as a vicious barking contest — in which ridiculous and blatantly false claims are fine and good.

When we respond to ‘libertarians’ and blunter neo-conservatives, it’s also important to distinguish hate speech from tolerable free speech. I didn’t try to draw any such lines in the writing on that blog page, but I have put some time into those sorts of conflicts, in the past. (Comments which I bothered to post here and here come to mind. I also put myself in the middle of a nasty hate speech conflict in a former Indymedia group here in London, Ontario; the Indymedia project went down in flames during that battle — which also was a matter of milder sexism, and other problems.)

In some cases, tensions and gaps in understanding are too far gone to warrant the time and effort required to take sides in a conflict. And those counterproductive spats happen a lot more on the Internet. The remarks on the “Other viewpoints” section of the Countering Coulter blog are cases in point.

Here are various photos, video, and writing about the actions that day — in several Canadian cities.

——

In Toronto

4 of us went out to Toronto to join the protesting there.  We brought a banner and signs.  Here are remarks about other contributions that our London delegation made that day.

My photos from that protesting are posted here.

——

In London, Ontario

Here are a series of photos from our local protest on March 1st; there also are remarks and videos links about/from that protesting.

Half of the photos are from me.

Basically, I compare Olympics marketing imagery and rhetoric with the living conditions and activism of indigenous peoples here in Canada. (The post is about a Canada-wide context, more so than it’s about Vancouver and the VAN Organizing Committee per se.)

I invite you to skip the blurb about me, at the start of the post.

—

Lisa helped to edit the writing, and Gwen fixed formatting problems that I had left in there.

I also appreciate other help from Laura, Annick, and Steve.

—

The post stems from a relatively brief e-mail that I had sent in to Sociological Images back on May 24th, 2009. After writing some thoughts on Flickr posts here and here, I had sent the e-mail to the web site editors to connect the same sorts of native issues to Olympics marketing that already was circulated around here in Canada.

Then, after May, I published a piece about some native activism in Ontario, and I became very involved in pro-native campaigning against the tar sands — for the sake of wider climate justice.  (I have posted about climate justice issues here.)  (So far, I mainly have been a climate justice activist in a local Mobilization for Climate Justice group; but I also have started to form collaborative connections with people in other areas of the U.S. and Canada.)  And, over the past two weeks, I was very involved in anti-Olympic protest organizing, which I mainly joined because of how the day of action was connected with tar sands issues.

In a “Feminism and Race” Women’s Studies grad course that I was in last term, I also worked through some indigenous and climate justice issues.  That course helped a lot with the writing that I did for the Sociological Images post.

=======

Similar greenwash techniques also are used in other marketing and PR spin.

Here’s one example -

(That poor-quality photo was taken in a subway station in Toronto, Ontario, Canada during the summer. I also saw the same ads elsewhere in Toronto, around that time.)

I’m sure that there are no cell phones out there that can be produced, packaged, shipped, sold, or recycled without negative environmental impacts.  Generally, electronics equipment is made with non-renewable materials; and materials for the devices often will have to be extracted from environments, which still may be inhabited, or which people may have been forcibly displaced from, in other cases.  Pollution from that extraction generally will be one more type of environmental impact around the production of electronics devices (for the time being, at least).

But we are supposed to believe that those “fido” phones are environmentally friendly because the words “nature” and “eco-friendly” are in the ad, with an image of a dog and a tree branch.  It’s hard to imagine a shallower ‘environmental’ message. In other words: that marketing language and imagery obviously is very hollow.

——-

(In a mall in London, Ontario, Canada — during the summer)

Are these “eco-” products supposed to help stop fresh water depletion, and smog, and various other ecological problems?

I expect that the “eco-” label mainly will be taken as a sign that the perfume is completely non-toxic, but there is much more to ecology.

If we set aside from questions about how this perfume may or may not actually help to resolve and prevent ecological problems, there still are pertinent questions about the ecological costs of the perfume. Materials will have to be drawn out of natural environments to produce, to package, to ship, and to sell these products (by powering factories, vehicles, and stores — for instance).  With or without the ‘green’ marketing, there also will be pollution around all of that production and consumption.

I also think that we should very skeptical about the suggestion (or the hint, at least) that this perfume is non-toxic. Maybe these chemicals are relatively benign — when they’re compared with worse perfumes — but I don’t see why anyone should that the chemicals are totally harmless.

Ultimately, since the advertisers don’t explain what “eco”- is supposed to mean, that word probably amounts to next to nothing.

——-

Those words were typed out before I looked for more information about the products.  Now that I have looked into the products more, here is my overall verdict -

At best, these “fido” and “Roots” products are less environmentally harmful — relative to other perfumes and cell phones.
But, as I have been indicating, the “eco” “nature” marketing suggests that the companies are selling a lot more than products that merely aren’t as bad as some other ones; so the marketing definitely is greenwash.

Likewise, the cartoon at the start of this post is about over-inflated claims.

=======

Here are some related posts on this blog -
http://tobanblack.net/blog/?tag=greenwash

=======

UK Climate Campers have said this on Twitter (in their “bio” statement) -
“It’s time to show our ‘leaders’ how we’re going to take action to reduce emissions ourselves. Because it’s business as usual at Copenhagen.”

——-

Cascadia Brian (of Rising Tide North America)
on the It’s Getting Hot in Here blog -
“Copenhagen and the end of naïveté”

A post from “tanuki” (of Rising Tide North America, and other networks)
on the It’s Getting Hot in Here blog -
“Out of the frying pan and into the streets!, or ‘How I stopped lobbying and put up my dukes!‘”
(I’m not re-posting that link to reject any and all lobbying — particularly at the municipal level, where lobbying impacts are more feasible.)

——-

Common people are going to have to sort these problems out;
and to accomplish that, we’re going to have to rise up — to take power.

We need to collectively re-make this world; and to do that, we’ll need to motivate and mobilize a lot more people — including ourselves, in some cases.

What are we waiting for? Let’s do this.
A lot more of us will have to be a lot more engaged in making this change happen.

Obama is not a radical superhero; and no one else out there is either.  There are no hero-saviours out there who are going to turn around these crises on, their own.

Join us in the climate justice movement
AND/OR
Join us in the pursuit of practical, community-level solutions.

Those two approaches and focuses are complementary.

Radical-confrontational climate justice approaches aren’t for everyone. But people also can help tackle these problems through community networks — to support local gardening, local bicycling, and other community resilience. The Transition network, and “Transition Towns” projects, mainly are what I have in mind here, as ways of pursuing community-scale solutions.

At the climate justice end of the continuum, look up the Mobilization for Climate Justice, Climate Justice Action, and Camp for Climate Action activism. Those networks or coalitions are three key examples, yet there also are other entry-ways into climate justice activism.

——-

Here are snippets from what Naresh Giangrande has said in a recent post that he wrote as a Transition network organizer, at the COP15 climate talks -

“We are faced with a system that cannot and will not make the changes necessary to create a resilient world in the face of climate change and peak oil. It would go against everything the system is designed for.”

“Only when the necessary conditions for a paradigm shift are in place that will allow us to make the necessary changes that a resilient culture demands, will we get a society ‘fit for the purpose of life’. The Transition approach is designed to start creating those new structures and systems of living right now and start putting into place alternative arrangements for every system we now depend. Only where there is enough in place that we can start to depend on it will the size and scale of change occur.”

“For me hope springs from the eventual withering away of our current system and its gradual replacement with one that can allow to emerge, using all of our technological prowess and creativity, a life supporting- for all of life- human presence on the planet.”

That’s Giangrande’s take on the slogan “System Change, Not Climate Change”.

——-

Anna C Keenan (who has been a core Climate Justice Fast organizer) –
in this blog post -

“I am feeling more hopeful and more powerful than ever, because in spite of political failure and inaction, I can see the wheels off change turning and greater public dicontent churning up everywhere.”

“The world needed a shake-up and it got one with the failure of COP15.

This stuff – the ‘Divided Nations’ instead of the ‘United Nations’ – is way better than some nice-looking political declaration that makes people across the world believe that politicians are going to save them. If we’d had that sort of outcome, it would have given the world’s population false hope. Maybe now the general public will start to find this interesting, and will start to pay attention.

Even better, maybe they will start to get really pissed off and actually get off the couch and do something about it.”

—

Johann Hari has written an article titled “After the catastrophe in Copenhagen, it’s up to us.” Here are selected excerpts -

“The Good Daddy isn’t in charge.”

“The time for changing your light-bulbs and hoping for the best is over. It is time to take collective action.”

“Every coal train should be ringed with people refusing to let it pass. Every new runway should be blockaded. The cost of trashing the climate needs to be raised.

It works. Look at Britain. Three years ago, eight new coal power stations were being planned, and the third runway at Heathrow was all but inevitable. A few thousand heroic young people took direct action against them. Now all the new coal power stations have been cancelled, and the third runway is dead in the water. Here in the fifth largest economy in the world, they have stopped coal and airport expansion. Politicians felt the heat. That was done by a few thousand people. Imagine what tens or hundreds of thousands could do.

There need to be parallel movements to this in every country on earth.” “Copenhagen had one value, and one value alone. It has shown us that if we don’t act in our own self-defence now, nobody else will.”

Hari basically suggests that people should support big NGOs (non-government organizations), and/or engage in civil disobedience.  But there are various other ways to pitch in.  Here’s an example: the climate justice group that I am part of has started to leaflet inside and in front of an RBC (Royal Bank of Canada) branch; we target RBC because that company is the main financier of tar sands ‘development.’  Of course, as we leaflet, we also talk to people who stop to show interest.  We also have brought petitions out as we have leafletted.

There are a range of strategies and focuses that can be combined to effectively change societies for the better.  Re-making our societies will entail more than two focuses and tactics (which isn’t to say that all approaches are helpful; some approaches actually are counter-productive).

—

Hopefully the COP15 failure will radicalize or otherwise motivate enough people, soon enough, to allow us to sort the out the climate and energy mega-messes.  Injustices and market failures will have to be tackled as well.  We are caught up in multi-dimensional crises that will have to be addressed from more than one angle.  As I have said and otherwise indicate up above, climate justice and community resilience approaches both can help us to sort out these crises — while bringing about a better future, at the same time.

LET’S GO THERE.  LET’S DO THAT…
NOW!!!

——-

The COP15 talks in Copenhagen have been called “Brokenhagen” and “Failenhagen.” One write-up in The Guardian is titled “Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure.”

Here is some selected material about the betrayals and the sell-outs in Copenhagen -

——-

Around the end of the talks

Civil society organization statements -
“US undermines climate talks with bullying tactics and backroom deals”
“Civil Society Denounces U.S. Plan for Fast-Tracking Warming, Worsening Humanitarian Crisis, and Fueling Ecological Collapse”

A statement from La Via Campesina -
“Traders failed in Copenhagen. The future lies in people’s hands”
(Although I support some of the groups and organizations who protested out there, I wouldn’t call the street demonstrations “power in Copenhagen.”)

A video -
“Bill McKibben reacts to climate deal announcement at flash rally”
“350.org founder and author, Bill McKibben offers his perspective of the end of the Copenhagen climate talks amidst a rousing rally to shame world leaders for not stepping up to the plate with a real deal.”

George Monbiot in The Guardian -
“Copenhagen negotiators bicker and filibuster while the biosphere burns”
… “the chaotic, disastrous denouement of a chaotic and disastrous climate summit”

Johann Hari in The Huffington Post -
“They didn’t seal the deal; they sealed the coffin”
(I don’t agree with every word in the article. In particular, I’m not so convinced that an International Environmental Court is nearly as viable as Hari claims — which isn’t to say that binding targets couldn’t work somehow.)

Jamie Henn on the It’s Getting Hot In Here blog -
“Obama’s climate sham[e]: Empty rhetoric in Copenhagen speech”

——-

(Photo by Robert vanWaarden)

——-

Earlier in the talks

A video (from December 17th) -
“Hopenhagen occupied by Camp for Climate Action, called out for GREENWASHING”
“UK activist group Climate Camp demands real solutions to climate change while occupying corporately sponsored ‘Hopenhagen’ at the Cop15 starting at 8pm on a sub-freezing Thursday night in the heart of downtown Copenhagen. Climate Camp exposed the corporate ‘green-washing’ that is being advertised and sold to the world by green-capitalists as solutions to the global climate crisis.”
(The Hopenhagen marketing was plastered around, well beyond that spot in Copenhagen.  Apparently a lot of Hopenhagen marketing was on display elsewhere in Copenhagen, during the talks there.  The same ad campaign also was circulated around other areas of the world — in magazines, for instance.)

Aafrench on the It’s Getting Hot in Here blog (on December 12th) -
“System change, not climate change!”

Jennifer Krill and Adrian Wilson on the It’s Getting Hot in Here blog (on December 9th) -
“COP-15: Climate justice for the poor, or backroom deals by the rich?”
(I haven’t followed the links in there.)

——

The Climate Thieves

——-

Before the talks in Copenhagen

Brian Tokar in CounterPunch (around December 5th) -
“Repackaging Copenhagen“:
“Will There be a Climate Agreement?”
(I appreciated most, if not all, of that article when I first read it.  I can’t remember if I read through the whole article, but I have appreciated other writing from Tokar, so I have confidence in this piece.)

Oscar Reyes in the New Internationalist (in early December) -
“Taking care of business”
“The world’s biggest corporations have hijacked the UN climate talks. That’s bad news for our future.”
(I don’t think I’ve read the entire article.)

=======

A patch that was made by Rachel, a local artist

—

A Streetfilms video -
“Stop the pollution, pick a solution” (from July)

——-

“No Impact Man” makes some points that should be more obvious -

“If you walk instead of drive, you use more calories.

Walking and cycling is healthier for people than driving. Walking and cycling is also healthier for the planet than driving. Use cars less and you get to reduce global warming and be less fat. What an amazingly wonderful synergy.”

(Obviously he is referring to the Earth’s biosphere when he uses the word “planet.” The thing is, that “planet” language implies that people don’t live in the biosphere — which just isn’t the case.)

—

A sign that I used to display on my bike during critical mass rallies

—

A recent Lancet study presented much the same message about personal health, and climate issues.

In September, a separate American report promoted walking and bicycling as means of reducing childhood obesity.
(The report recommends constructive changes in and through governments. I haven’t read the report’s take on any of those issues, but I will say that its recommendations seem to focus too narrowly on governments. At best, governments only are part of broader constructive changes. Officials can’t accomplish much on their own — in part, because most of the officials out there are worsening the various problems around us.)

—

An American Heart Association press release -
“Traffic exposure may have a triggering effect on heart attack” (in March)

=======

Here are some more posts about health issues -
http://tobanblack.net/blog/?tag=health

=======

As I noted in a previous post, our streets are battlegrounds. The automobile drivers definitely have the upper-hand in these battles -

A post on the Baltimore Spokes site -
“Half of traffic fatalities are not in cars (in June)

Elana Schor on the Streetsblog New York City site -
“WHO report highlights global health risk of traffic” (in June)

A post on the Bello Vello blog -
“7 reasons there’s more to bicycle safety than helmets” (in May)

John Bennett on the Sustainable Savannah blog -
“Calling crashes ‘accidents,’even when they aren’t” (in March)

Sarah Goodyear on the Streetsblog New York city site -
“The brute power of [car drivers]” (in September)

—

In this article, Kyle G. Brown brings some additional perspective to these problems. Focusing on Toronto, Ontario, he notes how…

“Every type of Toronto traveller indulges himself in one way or another. Some cyclists, it has been observed again and again – and again – disregard stop lights. Pedestrians do the same, and scowl at the complaining commuters they’re holding up.

Drivers commit similar infractions, from rolling stops and cruising in bike lanes, to turning without signaling. Some drive with the conviction that cyclists simply should not be on the road. They have written so in letters to the editor, and it often shows on the road.

But motor vehicles drive the stakes much higher.

I was run over by a truck and dragged under it. But I survived. In my case, no witness came to report the erratic behaviour of the driver prior to the crash, so he was charged with making an ‘unsafe turn,’ rather than say, assault with a weapon, or even careless driving. Instead of jail time, he’ll face a maximum fine of $120.

The so-called ‘ghost bikes’ that mark places where cyclists have been killed are proliferating throughout the GTA. People are dying on our streets due to either negligence – drivers sending text messages for example – or through a visceral, hateful hunger to exact revenge.

My own friends have confirmed that when they enter a motor vehicle, encased as they are behind steel and glass, a transformation takes place. They see the world through this protected urban tank, and their behaviour changes. As an occasional driver, I too, can attest to the fact that we become estranged from and more competitive with each other. Even the most banal lane changes become crucial innings to be won or lost, with the attendant sense of victory, loss or fury.

It’s rare to see cyclists honking (or ringing) in anger at each other, or swearing with shaking fists. I’ve had a few words to be sure, but nothing to make me feel the embarrassment I’ve felt after yelling out of my car window at someone who has just cut me off. (What could I possibly say to undo the act?)

Spontaneous exchanges of (sarcastic) comments, or apologies between cyclists and pedestrians usually remain civil, or at least within the wide realm of human conversation.

Interaction with or among automobilists tends to degenerate more quickly. The speeds are faster, drivers are physically insulated and isolated, and less sensitive, or oblivious to the impact they make on people around them.”

“Now, though, more pedestrians isolate themselves from others, deafened as they are to outside sound by iPod ear buds, or so absorbed in texting as to be blind to the bikes and cars coming straight at them.

But while pedestrians are the unsung miscreants of Toronto’s streets, and cyclists the source of an inordinate amount of public irritation, their misdeeds harm only themselves.

Cars and trucks are potential killing machines. Close to 3,000 people die on Canada’s roads every year. Those armed with a steering wheel and two to four tonnes of steel should keep in mind that the point they’re trying to make, or the time they’re trying to save, is probably not worth it.”

=======

A related post -
“Questioning car culture“

—

    
Little drivers

—

    
“Hot Wheels” and “Power Race” toys

—

An urban design model

—

    
Energy drinks

—

An ad about ‘healthy’ ‘male’ sexuality

=========

Two of these photos were taken in Toronto, Ontario. The rest are from London, Ontario.

There are more car culture photos in these posts -
- “Full Throttle”
- “Great cars”

A car advertisement on the back of a local bus

—

Andy Rowell on the Oil Change blog -
“Electric Vehicles May Increase CO2”
(I think it’s too much of a stretch to say that electric vehicles are “all the rage”; but some people definitely are looking toward them as ’solutions.’)

Brad Aaron on the Streetsblog New York City site -
“Do Your Part: Buy an Audi, Drive Fast” (in October)
(Evidently the author is using the word “transit” to refer to mass transit — such as buses.)

Fred Pearce in The Guardian -
“BMW’s ActiveHybrid X6 Accelerates Nonsense About High-performance, Low-emission Cars” (in September)

Brad Aaron on the Streetsblog New York City site -
“Ad Nauseam: Toyota’s (Passive-Aggressive) Ransom Note to America” (in October)

—

Here are some related posts on this blog -
http://tobanblack.net/blog/?tag=automobiles

Leo Hickman in The Guardian -
“CO2 is Green: The TV Advert Making Viewers Choke” (in September)

Anya Kamenetz on a Fast Company site -
“Head in the Tar Sands? The New York Times Runs Anti-Peak Oil Op-Ed” (in August)

—

Coal industry PR

Amanda Terkel on Think Progress -
“‘Let’s Learn About Coal’: Industry Front Group Distributes Coloring Book On The ‘Advantages’ Of Coal”

Amanda Terkel on Think Progress -
“University Of Kentucky Approves New $7 Million Industry-Funded Dorm Named After ‘Coal’” (in late October)

“Sparki” on The Understory blog  -
“The Real FACES of Environmental Extremism” (in October)

“Lenin” on the Lenin’s Tomb blog -
“Springboard for Griffin”

An article on the BBC web site -
“BNP support in poll sparks anger”
(Anti-BNP bias actually isn’t a problem that anyone should complain about.)

Brian Wheeler on the BBC web site -
“What did voters make of Griffin?”
(I’m not exactly recommending that article. I’m just pointing it out because I think it captures how the BBC airtime has tended to feed into the BNP.)

—

“Lenin” (in this post) -

“It has been pointed out that the arguments over Griffin’s appearance are analogous to those that erupted over Le Pen’s television appearance in 1984, after which support for the Front national doubled. Now Jim Wolfreys has explained in more detail the similarities between the tactics of the BNP and FN. These involve precisely the strategy of normalisation, distancing themselves from the explicit symbols, regalia and language of the traditional far right, and tapping into more socially accepted forms of right-wing politics, such as anti-immigrant racism.

We have to take note of such tactics, and make sure as many people understand them as possible.”

—

“Lenin” on the Lenin’s Tomb blog -
“Protest outside BBC”

Caroline Davies and James Robinson in The Guardian -
“Nick Griffin arrives for BBC debate despite mass protest outside TV centre”
[via Waging Nonviolence]

Brendan Montague on his site (the-sauce.org) -
“A Question of Support (BNP and Question Time)” (in late September)

—

According to Brendan Montague -

“Eight students were attacked with what is believed to be pepper spray by police at the gates of the BBC head quarters.”

Another individual “was left with a 3cm gash to his head after being struck with a truncheon.”

—

This blog post suggests that denying the BNP a platform would feed in to them (to some extent) because “a core element of their propaganda is a persecution complex where the BNP are victimised by powerful forces for daring to tell the ‘truth.’ ” (The author also presents other points — including statements about how common Brits should know better than to support the BNP. But I’m just going to respond to the point that I had quoted.)

Regarding that statement about “persecution” and supposed victimization -

It’s true that shutting the BNP out of the mainstream press wouldn’t be enough to make them go away, and it’s also true that the BNP would try to re-frame their marginalization as some form of greatness, but I also think it’s now clear that casting any spotlight on the BNP — and a ‘respectable,’ ‘legitimate’ BBC spotlight at that — easily can help them to draw in more supporters. Although the BNP are bound to get official or otherwise mainstream platforms at times, for as long as they have elected officials in office, they still haven’t had much access to major outlets (like the mainstream press). The BNP have been around the fringes of British society; so just landing a place on the mainstream agenda easily can leave them with some more support — from a proportion of the audiences that they gain. Amidst the controversies before, during, and after the recent BBC/BNP broadcast, more people have come to the BNP with sympathy, curiosity, and other openness or support.  The BNP also have provoked more opposition, at the same time — but not effective opposition (so far).

It’s very difficult to confront a party that veils their views, and their goals, and their ties to a wider range of racism and fascism (including racist assault in the streets); so BNP marketing and spin must be exposed and challenged. If they won’t be forthcoming about who they are and what they are trying to do, then they shouldn’t be given platforms, and room on prominent agendas; they simply should be condemned and shut out.

Brits should hear about what the BNP is, but the BNP tends to avoid blunt and accurate accounts themselves (in public). And, regardless of how open they are about their views and goals, they are bound to try to cultivate an air of up-standing ‘democratic’ officialdom (as a veneer over their racist fascism). Obviously they’re not the only party spinsters out there though. I don’t think we should take any party politics for granted — whereas allowing the BNP to enter into the mix of established parties extends the scope of party politics, by adding in their neo-Nazi approach (that is, their support for hate crimes, their WWII fascist holocaust denial, etc).

Outsiders generally will have to outline BNP’s stances more clearly than the BNP will. Since it wouldn’t do to just ignore them, others should be calling attention to the BNP’s approach — without reproducing their sinister subterfuges, or their pretensions about supporting democratic nationalism. I hope that this video is shown on television — repeatedly. I also think that people should be questioning the name “British National Party,” which suggests that the BNP is standing up for “British National” interests (in a country that obviously does include coloured immigrant populations — who certainly should be just as welcome to participate as citizens, and as members of communities). The name “British Nazi Party” would be more fitting, but that term is just a form of name-calling, rather than a more substantial critique. BNP/Nazi interconnections certainly are among the issues that people should be highlighting though (in part, because of how the Nazis actually shelled the British nation during WWII air raids).

But we shouldn’t be debating questions like whether or not immigrants are human, or whether mass murder is OK. The BNP also shouldn’t be allowed to dance around their positions on such issues, if they’re given or allowed to have platforms — if not an air of legitimate acceptance on platforms like the BBC.

Brendan Montague on his site (the-sauce.org) -
“BNP = NF + €”

(Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons are in that photo)

.

Inayat Bunglawala in The Guardian -
“Protect our mosques from the far right” (in June)

Dan Evans in News of the World -
“Angel-faced racist aged 12: Girl burns golly at BNP fun day” (in August)
(I mainly am posting that link to highlight the “Golly”-burning.)

.

These posts were put together just after the BNP took two parliamentary seats in a June election in Britain -

“Lenin” on the Lenin’s Tomb blog -
“Look who wants ‘free speech’”
(”I have just been looking through some of the criminal records of current and former BNP members - quite revealing it is too. You get a sense of the kinds of people the fascists attract, as well as the things they prepare people to do.” …)

“Lenin” on the Lenin’s Tomb blog -
“The fascist vote”
(”Well, we wanted to know who BNP voters were, what social class they are from, what party they traditionally backed, and what they knew about the party they have now given their vote to. This poll report gives us some of the material we need.” …)

.

This post is about a protest that was organized just after that electoral victory for the BNP -

Brendan Montague on his site (the-sauce.org) -
“Master race“