[asia-apec 1178] APEC Hearings Update 2/2

[Jaggi Singh]

[2/2. Part 1 includes an introduction to this APEC Hearing Update. For a
previous Update written three months ago, e-mail jaggi at tao.ca]


3) "Embarrassment from the Canadian definition"

Jean Carle's "will says" also makes references to the Indonesian
government's concerns about protests. Carle tells Commission Counsel that
"demonstrations are part of Canadian folklore." Carle also points out that
"the Indonesian definition of embarrassment is different from ours. From
their perspective, they did not want to see any demonstrations."

Well, while the Indonesian government may not have wanted to see
demonstrations, the Canadian government also had its own definitions.
Carle admits that on August 27, 1997 (three months before the Summit) he
made a site visit.

Carle was concerned about "sound penetrating the walls where the Leaders
were meeting" as well as the location of the security perimeter (which was
eventually moved back, in violation of an agreement between the government
and UBC).

This is what the "will says" has to say about Carle's views on sound: "At
that point [August 27], he was concerned about sound, which would have
constituted embarrassment from the Canadian definition. Mr. Carle wanted
to push back the demonstration area along Gate 4, which was across Marine
Drive from the Museum of Anthropology."

So, for future reference, here are two international embarrassment
parameters:

Indonesian government: don't like seeing protesters
Canadian government: don't like hearing protesters

Together, the Indonesian and Canadian definitions made for a "free-speech
free" APEC Summit. Suddenly, the confiscating of megaphones makes a lot of
sense.


4) Chretien's cancelled tour and shredded documents

Carle's "will says" has other interesting tidbits. For example, Prime
Minister Chretien was supposed to make a site visit to the Museum before
the Leader's Summit. However, our seniormost politician cancelled the
important tour because of the anti-APEC tent city protests organized by
APEC ALERT. According to Carle, "the Prime Minister's office did not want
to provoke anyone and that was the reason for the cancellation."

Carle's "will says" also reveals that "he was briefed several times by the
RCMP on threat assessments. He was privy to intelligence documents and
understood that all assessments were low or moderate."

Conveniently, Carle "did not take notes", and he either threw out or
shredded all APEC-related documents. He claims that nothing that was
destroyed was an original document.


5) An ambassador's view

The Commission has also provided the "will says" for Gary Smith, Canada's
ambassador to Indonesia from September 1996 to June 1998.

In the document, Canada's policy regarding Indonesia's security concerns
is abundantly clear: "Mr. Smith will say that it was a policy objective of
Canada to get President Suharto to attend APEC. It was important for them
that he be there. Everyone understood this within the Canadian
government."

The "will says" goes on to outline all the extraordinary efforts made by
Canadian diplomatic officials to appease Suharto, including Foreign
Minister Lloyd Axworthy's letter to the Indonesian government apologizing
for the actions of Canadian protesters.


6) Sensitive matters

One of the more interesting testimonies at the RCMP Public Complaints was
by Karen Pearlston (June 17). She was a grad student in law at UBC during
APEC, and a resident of Green College which fell within the security red
zone set up by the RCMP.

On the Saturday before the Leaders' Summit (four full days before the
meeting), she attempted to place some anti-APEC posters on the security
fence that was put up outside her residence. She was immediately stopped
by about five officers.

Being a law student, Karen demanded to know on what legal basis the
officers could remove signs. She was told by one officer, "[I]t was on
orders from the Prime Minister's Office that there should be no signs and
no people on that side of the street."

At the Commission, before Karen could even testify what the officer told
her directly, she was immediately interrupted by the head government
lawyer, Ivan Whitehall, QC. He made a tenuous argument that it was not
permissible for the witness to continue testifying on what she was told by
someone else.

Whitehall was ruled out of order, and Karen was able to put her
conversation with the police on the record. Again he objected, due to the
"sensitive nature" of her comments. As an experienced lawyer, Whitehall
knew his objection was silly, and proceeded to defend himself by saying
his "intervention was a cautionary one."

If anyone thinks that Karen's account of her conversation with the police
is an after-the-fact embellishment, she happened to write and widely
distribute an e-mail about the entire incident the same day (4 days before
Spraypec on November 25). Not surprisingly, Whitehall again unsuccessfully
objected to having this key piece of evidence admitted on-the-record.

Karen's testimony and e-mail provides a clear link to the PMO's
involvement in the removal of signs at UBC (aside from the reams of
incriminating documents that have already been revealed to the media).


7) Anarchists, socialists and "left-wingers"

Interestingly, another government lawyer, Simon Fothergill, aggressively
cross-examined Garth Mullins on his political beliefs, although Simon
seems to need a refresher a course in political science 101, as shown by
this exchange (June 2):

Fothergill: Am I right in thinking that you're also a member of the
International Socialists?
Garth Mullins: I have been, am not currently.
Fothergill: I see.  Would it be accurate to describe the International
Socialists as an anarchist group?
Garth Mullins: No.
Fothergill: All right.  Have you been involved in anarchist activism?

...  and on and on about Garth's political background.

The members of the Democracy Street lawsuit group who have had a public
profile, like Garth, have experienced some of the most aggressive
cross-examination from the RCMP and government lawyers at the Commission.
Alissa Westergard-Thorpe in particular had to endure hours of questions
from three separate hostile lawyers.

Democracy Street was formed by a diverse group of people weeks after APEC,
most of whom did not know each other before November 25. The government
lawyers were definitely trying to imply, however, that there might have
been some sort of activist conspiracy at work before Democracy Street even
existed (another one of the RCMP's far-fetched theories).

Meanwhile, Commission Counsel has been trying hard to establish some sort
of leadership hierarchy to APEC ALERT. What follows is one of the more
humorous exchanges at a usually humorless Commission. Jamie Doucette, who
was arrested along with Annette for having a walkie-talkie, was being
questioned by Barbara Fisher for the Commission (June 5):

Jamie Doucette: The nature of APEC Alert organizing of, I guess, direct
democratic organizing in general, is that everyone has an organizational
role. It's -- operates on principles of affinity, that -- it's like a road
hockey game. You pick a spot and, you know, this person brings this, this
person brings that, and you sort of discuss how it's going to take shape.
It's nothing really more complicated than that, but you can't say that
there's a certain leader or a certain authority. 
Question: So you might not have been the team captain, but what position
did you play? 
Jamie Doucette: Left wing.


This update is already too long, so if you want to know everything that's
been happening at the Commission, the transcripts can be accessed online
at http://www.tscript.com (that's how I wrote most of this report).

For more information about the APEC Hearings, e-mail either jaggi at tao.ca
or jono at physics.ubc.ca.

[End of 2/2. Written by Jaggi Singh.]