Halifax Media Co-op

News from Nova Scotia's Grassroots

More independent news:
Do you want free independent news delivered weekly? sign up now
Can you support independent journalists with $5? donate today!

Why I am going to the fence

Blog posts reflect the views of their authors.
Why I am going to the fence

There is a 3-meter high unscaleable fence dividing Toronto. Dividing those who control the global economic system and those who are controlled by it.

Toronto’s fence is just another physical manifestation of the invisible and sometimes all too visible walls that divide us everyday. Whether they are judicial, bureaucratic, geographic or economic barriers to equality and justice, these fences stratify and divide us based on our class, gender, sexual orientation, race and geography. These fences give a few of us more privileges, some of us pure misery and everything in between.

The fence is a symbol with all that is wrong with this world. Here are just a few points of discussion about confronting the fence.

1. Symbols Have Power. There can be no doubt that confronting the fence is symbolic. Tearing it down or scaling to the top of it will not change the present order of things. However, if we are interested in talking about the issues at the heart of the G2O (neoliberalism, colonialism, migrant rights, economic justice, gender justice etc.) then we need to be visible at the site of contention. We need to show that their architecture of fear will not discourage us and it will not keep us out.

2. The Eros Effect. Those of us in Toronto have a duty to stand up to this 1 billion dollar terrorist operation. We need to show the rest of the world there are those who oppose the G20 and their scare tactics. The images of Toronto will be broadcast around the world. Those images have the possibility to inspire others; to show them they are not alone; that this isolating and oppressive system fosters movements of hope. The author George Katsiaficas called this the Eros effect. The potential power of challenging the greatest symbol of injustice of the neoliberal order far out-weighs its risk.

3. Imagine Without. Imagine, just for a moment, Quebec City without the massive protests that challenged the fence. Imagine Seattle without the militant direct action of protesters. Imagine Genoa without its red zone. When I do this, I do not see more public awareness, I don’t see a growing movement. I see movements without their moments. These militant actions were the kernel of the struggle. They may have been problematic at times but can you really imagine these larger protests without their militant twin? 

4. Democracy. There are loads of questions about democracy within the broader left. How do we come to make decisions? How do we be inclusive? How can we make sure that everyone’s choice of participation is respected? It should be noted that not everyone’s choice should or can be respected. If someone brought a gun to a march and waved it around that would obviously not be tolerated. It would define everyone’s experience and risk the safety of all. The difference between that scenario and going to the fence is huge. Those of us going to the fence aren’t looking to hijack the rally. We just want a space of our own to highlight this terrible fence.  

The CLC and the OFL want a peaceful, family friendly march. This should be respected. Others, dissident labour members, anarchists, community groups etc., want to break off and go the fence. It is unclear what will happen there. The break off does not subvert democracy. It allows a minority to express itself in a way that won’t jeopardize the tone of the main march.

5. Together. We must move together. Breathe together. Live together. Win together. Lose together. Struggle together. We have no other option. This means that we must respect other groups and strategies. I am going to the fence. This doesn’t make me more radical or brave than others. People engage in politics and protests in many different ways. Status, gender, class, mobility, children etc… determine how people can act. We must respect that. We must also respect people who have different levels of comfort with certain tactics for moral or safety reasons. We need to find ways to talk about these issues that go beyond violent or non-violent tactics. We need to talk about what tactics and strategies will help us build our movements and build unity and respect within our movements. 

This week I have seen more police than I have seen in a long-time. I have just learned that the police can now search and arrest whomever they want within 5 meters of the fence. (http://www.openfile.ca/toronto-file/g20-police-given-extra-powers)


There is fear in Toronto. I can feel it.

I, for one, am afraid. But my fear of the police is far outweighed by the fear that the fence here has been normalized, and accepted. We must render the invisible (the true meaning of the fence) visible.

So I will march not with fear but with freedom in my heart.

And I will go to the fence.



Want more grassroots coverage?
Join the Media Co-op today.
813 words


I'm interested

..having read a few of your posts, am wanting to go further. I'm one of the people, who's framing the debate as a violence/non-violence issue and I appreciated your discussion of that and would like to know how you see it possible to 'go beyond' that. I definitely felt that there was room for differenct tactics and the 'going to the fence' action was one I agreed with provided it be done non-violently (there it is again!). but the rampaging thing completely lost me and I felt destroyed the credibility of the protesters participating in it and those standing around cheering for them . Yes, I hear the 'what about the credibility lacking for the summits?' and I agree but the whole discourse on those issues like BTA's and corporate takeover are sidelined by the window smashing. If the media can influence the public opinion then we need more articulation of the issues, no?. thanks, marianne

Well, without getting in to

Well, without getting in to what exactly is violence, I would say that there are ways to constructively talk about tactics without simply reducing arguments to violence/ non-violence. For instance is protest simply about displaying and influencing people through media. There is an element of that but there is so much more. There is the subjective experience of those protesting and organizing. It is empowering. If protest is simply an act of reasonable appeal then we are all doomed. It has to be about rendering visible and possible what is/was invisible and impossible. To exclude violent means is an ideological choice, one which not only fails to acknowledge the radical left's history but it cedes the space of political and social subjectivity to those in power. So you can agree/ disagree with violence in a particular time and place. But to reduce the debate to pacifism or not is saying that we should risk (in collective projects) nothing for fear of terrible crimes. I think there are ways to critique black-block tactics (if one feels inclined to) in particular situations without folding those criticisms into general principles. I am not sure if that answers your question or not. Thanks for reading.

The site for the Halifax local of The Media Co-op has been archived and will no longer be updated. Please visit the main Media Co-op website to learn more about the organization.