David Eby - Blog

It occurred to me this morning that VANOC has really missed a unique opportunity for controlling messages around the Olympics. It'll take a second to lay it out, but I think you'll agree when I'm done that I should be working in whatever in-house legal department comes up with VANOC's various accountability avoiding schemes.

So they've got all of these great copyrights over things like "2010" and "Silver" and suchlike through the federal Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act, which is ok for limiting free expression, but does it go as far as VANOC would hope?

I say no.

Here's the deal. You're VANOC, you're tired of taking it on the chin from mouthy people who ask boring questions that you don't want to answer, over and over again. Sure, you've stopped holding live media interviews, and you've tried to get bylaws passed that restrict free expression, but somehow it just hasn't given you the tools you need to get the job done and guaranteed an unforgettable and dissent-free Games experience for everyone, but mostly you, come 2010.

What to do?

Today's inspiration comes courtesy of the City of Edmonton social media coordinator, who innocently tweeted that she had sent off the City's blog post to VANOC for approval. Why, you may ask? Not for censorship reasons, but apparently because she was using copyright terms in the, um, remarkably controversial post titled "Getting in the Olympic spirit" and checking with copyright owners to see if they like your blog post is apparently routine in Edmonton.


Now as obvious as all of the jokes about screening a blog post titled "Getting in the Olympic spirit" with VANOC are, I'm going to ask you to hold off for a second.

I have a larger point here.

What if VANOC, instead of only copyrighting celebratory terms, also copyrighted non-celebratory terms? Like "police state" or "censorship" or "over budget" or "big brother" or "homeless" or "huge waste of resources"?

If I may say so, it's a genius plan. Avoid the use of the criminal law and all of its pro-criminal constitutional loopholes, and focus on a winning game plan: sending demand letters and obtaining injunctions! Every time someone says "These Olympics are a huge waste of resources that could be better spent on solving homelessness," just send them a polite reminder that the next time they do so, you'll see them in court.

Of course, I suppose VANOC could do this already with just the word Olympics, but I feel like it might be more honest and avoid the Lululemon-esque disaster of crafty protest slogans like the "winter sporting event happening between 2009 and 2011 that costs more than solving homelessness" if they took my advice.

I'm just saying.

With special thanks to my source...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games
Date: 2009/12/18
Subject: John Furlong 2009 Year End Media Interview
To: [DELETED]

John Furlong 2009 Year End Media Interview

(la version française suit ci-dessous)

TO OLYMPIC REPORTERS, SPORTS AND NEWS EDITORS, WEB EDITORS:
VANCOUVER, Dec. 18 /CNW/ -

Hello,

It's been a busy year and it's rapidly coming to a close. With 55 days to go we're making every effort to meet the growing media requests from both domestic and international media, always with a goal of providing the insights and comments that share our progress to date with those interested in the Games. In past years we have been able to accommodate each request for one on one year end interviews with our CEO, John Furlong, however the demand from both Canadian and international media has grown exponentially this year such that several days of John's time would have been required to fulfill all of them.

So we have taken a different approach this year that we believe is both fair and efficient - and we thank you in advance for your understanding. We have prepared a John Furlong 2009 Year End Media Interview, a 15 minute full color high definition interview that is set up much like a video b-roll with clean clips.

(**) The high definition file will be made available to you on Monday.

The interview covers the following topics:

- What were the biggest challenges of 2009?

- How did you overcome the economic challenges of 2009?

- What were your biggest successes of 2009?

- Are you where you hoped you'd be heading into 2010?

- What key deliverables still remain?

- Do you have any special plans to ring in the New Year on Dec. 31?

- How do you expect you might feel that night?

- Do you have any wishes for Canadians this Olympic year?

- Do you have any wishes for our international visitors?

We have tried to cover all of the topics we thought you would want to ask John. We appreciate, however, that once you have previewed the video and identified the quotes that you need, there may still be a question or two that you want to ask John. He has been travelling for several days and is just back in the office on Monday and will be gone again on Wednesday, but he will be available informally for end of the year scrums for about 20 minutes following the planned ticketing/transportation briefing at our offices on Monday, December 21st at 11am. Again, we would encourage you to preview the video at the link below, and then gauge what else you want to ask him to meet your needs, as his time will be limited.

Again, thank you for your interest in how the year has gone here at VANOC, and we appreciate your understanding of the time constraints that are upon us with only a very short time to go until the Games.

We always welcome your feedback and comments. Please feel free to contact me directly until end of the day on Saturday by return e-mail or contact our Media Relations team at mediarelations@vancouver2010.com

Here's how to preview the file:

http://www.pinpoint.bc.ca/video/VANOC_Furlong-2009wrap.mov.zip

Happy Holidays to you and your family,

Renée Smith-Valade
Vice-President - Communications, VANOC

Some of you were interested in followup on my increasingly public discussion with the property management company that manages my apartment about whether or not they could search my place for Olympic subtenants.

Here are some of the highlights, and the exciting and predictable conclusion for this tenant, while unfortunately others remain exposed to "random checks" for Olympic sublets:

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxxxx [mailto:xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.com]
Sent: December 16, 2009 11:17 AM
To: David Eby
Cc: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Urgent Notice Regarding Subletting & DTS Holiday Notice

[. . .]

Thank you for your email. I can certainly appreciate and understand your concerns, [. . .] however, we are allowed under the Act to inspect the property.

[. . .]

If you have further questions or concerns regarding this matter, please let
me know so we can discuss.

Sincerely,

xxxxxxxxx
Property Manager
xxxxxxxxxxxx Ltd.
--------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: David Eby
Sent: December 16, 2009 12:24 PM
To: xxxxxxxxx
Cc: xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Urgent Notice Regarding Subletting & DTS Holiday Notice

[. . .]

While I appreciate your time, I strongly disagree with your reading of section 29, in that [. . .] Randomly searching for sublettors simply because the Olympics are on is not a reasonable reason for access.

[. . .]

Dave

------------

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: December 17, 2009 1:55 PM
To: David Eby
Cc: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Urgent Notice Regarding Subletting & DTS Holiday Notice

Hello David,

Per my last email, I am awaiting a response from the RTO and then we can
discuss further.

Sincerely,

xxxxxxxx
Property Manager
------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: David Eby
Sent: December 17, 2009 6:41 PM
To:xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Urgent Notice Regarding Subletting & DTS Holiday Notice

Hi xxxxxxxx:
I'm not aware of a service within the RTB that renders legal opinions to property management companies, but if they do provide such a legal opinion, I'd appreciate a copy. I'll file on Monday if you haven't had a response from the RTB by then that makes you feel you can assure me that the described search/inspection won't take place at my unit.

So that you are aware, it is possible that the Vancouver Province newspaper is going to run an article on this for tomorrow; I discussed it with one of their reporters, John Bermingham.

While I understand the systemic issue for xxxxxxxx Inc., and a potential financial interest for your company in additional fees for supporting my landlord through an arbitration process, I must confess, I simply cannot see how my landlord litigating for the right to search for sublettors at my apartment benefits him at all either financially or in tenant relations. In fact, I'd ask that you please ask him whether you may release his e-mail address to me so that I can share our correspondence to date with him and try to get at the issue that he is concerned about and avoid litigation.

Dave
-----------------
From: xxxxxxxxx [From Property Management Company President]
Sent: December 18, 2009 7:24 AM
To: xxxxxxx
Cc: xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Urgent Notice Regarding Subletting & DTS Holiday Notice

Are you guaranteeing that you are not subletting your suite for the Olympic period.



-------------------------

From: David Eby
Sent: December 18, 2009 7:37 AM
To: David Eby
Cc: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Urgent Notice Regarding Subletting & DTS Holiday Notice

Of course, see my initial e-mail. I will not be subletting my apartment, guaranteed.

Dave
-------------------------

From: [From Property Management Company President]
Sent: December 18, 2009 1:15 PM
To: David Eby
Cc: xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Urgent Notice Regarding Subletting & DTS Holiday Notice

Thank you David. Your word is sufficient for me. i don´t think we need to pursue this xxxxx.

In this remarkable period of Olympic exceptionalism, my landlord's property management company took the time to e-mail me today to advise that my privacy rights had changed for the Olympic period and I was now subject to random searches for no reason other than that the Olympics are on.

Names have been removed to protect the innocent staffer who apparently does not know any better. I've left my name in, as I have recently discovered that I am ignorant, but not innocently so.
-----------------
From: "Admin - Andrea XXXXX"
To: "David Eby"
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:45:14 -0500
Subject: Urgent Notice Regarding Subletting & DTS Holiday Notice
To: All Tenants

Just a friendly reminder:

Per your tenancy agreement with us, short term subletting of your suite is prohibited unless approved in writing by XXXXXX Ltd. This includes rentals during the Olympics. At the request of many of our clients, we will be doing random inspections throughout the Olympic period to ensure that illegal subletting is not taking place. Of course, the mandatory 24 hours notice will be provided.

Also, please note that our offices will be closed from 1:00 pm on Thursday, December 24th, 2009 until 9:00 am Monday, January 4, 2010. If you experience a suite emergency during this time, please contact 604-xxx-xxxx and follow the prompts for our emergency answering service. An on call agent will then contact you to assist in your emergency. For any repairs/issues that occur during the holidays that are not an emergency, please contact us when our offices re-open in January.

Please advise if you have any questions or concerns.

Happy Holidays!

From your XXXXXXXXXXXX Property Management Team

P.S. Our apology in advance if you are a previous tenant and we have emailed you in error.

Sincerely,
Andrea XXXXXXX
Administrator

----------

Here, in case you're faced with a similar thing, was my reply.

----- Original Message -----
From: David Eby
To: administrator@xxxxxxxxxxx.com
Sent: Wed Dec 16 02:06:24 2009
Subject: Re: 800-SPAM:[SPQ=0] Urgent Notice Regarding Subletting & DTS Holiday Notice

Dear Ms. xxxxxxxxx:

Without seeking to be difficult, I disagree that searching for Olympic sublets is a reasonable purpose for an inspection under section 29 of the Residential Tenancy Act.

I invite you to provide some legal authority for such a search, along with a description of what you believe such a search properly consists of within the limits of privacy and tenancy law in B.C. If necessary, we can make an application to the RTB and/or Privacy Commissioner for adjudication of your rights to search for sublettors during the Olympics, and if permitted, what such a search may consist of.

Regardless of the outcome of our discussion, any guests I have during the Olympic period will, with respect, be advised by me not to agree to any interview with xxxxxxxxxxxx or your agents.

If it assists, I am pleased to advise you and your client, my landlord, that I greatly enjoy my apartment, will be working in Vancouver during the entire Olympic period and will not be subletting my home.

If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to e-mail. I would prefer to keep our correspondence on this matter in writing in the event we need a third party to determine whether my privacy rights as a tenant change during the Olympics.

Happy holidays to you as well.

David Eby

A remarkable reality check in today's Sun.

The headline B.C. Housing Plans Campaign to Combat Negative Press on Homelessness [During Olympics] reflects exactly where government priorities have gone.

It's not that long ago that people figured the headlines would read B.C. Housing Plans Campaign to Combat Homelessness [Before Olympics] or B.C. Housing Ramps Up Campaign to Combat Homelessness in time for Olympics.

Yes, beware ye future Olympic cities. Your positive legacies may look like so much spin come Games time.

Here's the new VPD policy on the Province's Assistance to Shelter Act that purports to give police the power to force homeless people to the front doors of emergency shelters by using, um, force. The VPD policy appears to ignore the whole point of the Act by introducing the unique new section of the police use of force spectrum that contemplates "minimal, non-forceful touching".

There are two possible reasons for the VPD ignoring the intent of the Act to let them hustle the homeless out of the tourist areas and into the shelter areas. First, they, like most people who have worked with the homeless, don't think the Act does anything to make life easier in working with the homeless, and in fact increases risk to homeless populations. Or, second, they missed Minister Coleman's point.

I suspect strongly it is the first.

This, of course, does not spare the homeless from having force used against them, as any policy is only as good as implementation, the police already have the Mental Health Act and public intoxication arrest powers, and, as my colleague Micheal Vonn says, even kinder and gentler touching is still too much force. And lest we forget, the RCMP in B.C. has endorsed the plan, which means that it is in full effect for the majority of the province.

Here, for your reading pleasure, is the VPD policy that, depending on your reading and perspective, either misses the point or gets the point.
---------
From: "Houghton, Lindsey"
Date: December 7, 2009 2:15:46 PM PST
To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
Subject: Statement of Chief Constable Jim Chu regarding the VPD's proposed policy for the Assistance to Shelter Act

Statement of Chief Constable Jim Chu regarding the VPD’s proposed policy for the Assistance to Shelter Act

Good afternoon.

The VPD is releasing publically [sic] our proposed policy to be used to enforce the Assistance to Shelter Act.

The interim policy will need to be approved by the Vancouver Police Board at their regular December 9th meeting.

Our understanding is that the Assistance to Shelter Act will be in force later this week.

The VPD respects and recognizes that the spirit of the Act is the preservation of life and the safety of the homeless, a goal the VPD has always shared. The VPD has always taken extraordinary steps to safeguard and shelter the homeless and will continue to do so as one our top priorities.

VPD assistance to the homeless has traditionally consisted of providing blankets, directions to shelters, transportation when appropriate and even arrangement for more permanent housing. This will not change.

The VPD can use existing legislation in the safeguarding of the homeless. If a person is suffering from a mental illness, heavily intoxicated, under the age of 19, or incapacitated, we have tools we can use to ensure a person’s safety.

The new legislation expands upon the above criteria to include any homeless person who prefers to stay outside in extreme weather conditions.

In the rare case that we encounter someone who does not want shelter, we will offer our regular assistance which includes blankets and warm clothing.

If these steps are not successful, and our officer believes that there is a risk of imminent serious injury or death, we will offer “further assistance” in the form of “minimal non-forceful touching” equivalent to the supporting hand one would use in helping an elderly person cross the street.

If the person refuses that assistance will we withdraw the contact immediately. We will continue to explore other tactics to ensure the person survives the extreme weather safely.
Our first rule in assisting the homeless will be as always; Do No Harm.

Our goal is to ensure that no person suffers needlessly for lack of shelter.

-30-

Constable 1920 Lindsey Houghton
Media Relations Officer
Public Affairs Section
Vancouver Police Department | Beyond the Call
T 604.717.3679
P 604.205.4686
E lindsey.houghton@vpd.ca | www.vpd.ca

-------------------
Proposed Policy

FOI recommendation: For Public Release

Section 1.17 Extreme Weather Assistance


POLICY

The VPD is committed to safeguarding the safety and security of all people its members deal with while respecting their fundamental human rights. This includes incidents where extreme weather places people at risk who have no shelter or access to shelter.

The Assistance to Shelter Act (“the Act”) provides police the option of using reasonable physical force to compel a person who has been deemed at risk of suffering physical harm or is suffering physical harm to be transported to an emergency shelter. This option is only applicable when an extreme weather alert, within the definition of the Act, is in effect. The Act is not intended to supplant or limit the enforcement of any other provincial or federal acts. The Act does not provide any powers of arrest, nor does it provide any powers to compel persons at risk to remain in an emergency shelter if the police have transported them there.

Existing legislation such as the Mental Health Act, the Child, Family and Community Service Act, the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, and the Offence Act have provisions for the police that may be applicable and of assistance in ensuring the safety of persons at risk during extreme weather. Such legislation should be utilized during extreme weather if appropriate in a particular situation.

PROCEDURE

Upon the activation of an extreme weather alert, as defined in the Act, the following shall apply:

1. The Central Dispatcher (CD) at E-COMM shall notify Car 10 and all VPD uniform members of the extreme weather alert, and ensure that as new members come on duty, they are also notified of the extreme weather alert.

2. The CD shall create a Special Attention (SA) call, covering all four VPD districts, and shall leave the SA on the Dispatch Board until the end of the extreme weather alert. Any incidents related to the extreme weather alert shall be cross- referenced to the SA call.

3. Car 10 shall notify VPD Public Affairs Section and the Homeless Outreach Coordinator.

4. Where a member encounters persons without shelter during extreme weather, the following options should be considered to assist them:

a. If the person is under 19 years of age, the member shall consider utilizing the provisions of Section 27(1) of the Child, Family and Community Service Act to protect a child at risk;

b. If the person meets the criteria under s. 28 of the Mental Health Act, then apprehend as set out in RPM Section 1.6.24 (i);

c. If the person meets the criteria to arrest for being in a State of Intoxication in a Public Place (H/SIPP) then arrest as described in s. 1.4.5 of the RPM, “Arrest – Hold Intoxication in a Public Place”; or

d. If the person is in need of medical attention but refuses and is believed to be unable to make a competent decision to do so, call EHS and apprehend as described in s. 1.2.2 “Use of Force to Provide Medical Aid” if sufficient grounds exist.

5. If the member determines that there are no grounds for an apprehension or arrest as described in section 4 of this policy, and in the member’s opinion the person may suffer imminent serious injury or death due to the extreme weather, the member shall:

a. State their authority under the Assistance to Shelter Act;

b. Offer transportation to an emergency shelter or other appropriate shelter;

c. Permit the person to go unaccompanied to an emergency shelter or other appropriate shelter; and,

d. Provide a list of emergency shelters for that person’s future reference and use .

6. If the person refuses to utilize an emergency shelter, the following procedure shall apply:

a. The member shall offer other reasonable assistance to the person. Reasonable assistance may include:

i. Reinforcing the authority under the Assistance to Shelter Act in an attempt to convince the person to cooperate for their own safety;

ii. Providing blankets (if available);

iii. Contacting available outreach workers to assist;

iv. Requesting a SA that on-duty members periodically check on the welfare of the person (where operationally feasible);

v. Taking other steps that will satisfy our duty of care to the person at risk (e.g., obtaining the person’s agreement to move to a more protected location where they are not at risk of imminent serious injury or death).

b. If the member determines the above alternatives are insufficient, then the member may attempt to provide further assistance to the person in order to assist them to shelter, as provided for in the Act. “Further assistance” in this policy means minimal, non-forceful touching with the sole goal of persuading the person to seek shelter; and,

c. If met with more than passive resistance, the member shall not escalate to a higher level use of force but instead shall disengage and release the person.

7. In all cases members shall submit a detailed General Occurrence Report, cross referenced to the SA generated for the extreme weather alert.

8. If it is determined that there are no available emergency shelter spaces within Vancouver, the CD shall contact BC Housing emergency contact at XXXX .

9. Upon notification by the party responsible for issuing the extreme weather alert that the alert has been cancelled, the CD shall notify Car 10, all on duty members, the VPD Homeless Outreach Coordinator and close the appropriate SA call with the details of the alert cancelation [sic].

Below are my remarks from last night's Olympic panel with Bud Mercer and Steve Sweeney of the Vancouver Integrated Security Unit, and Bill Cooper from VANOC. My remarks were in the form of an open letter. It's long, but maybe on a Friday afternoon at work you'll find the time.
-----------
An open letter to VANOC and the Integrated Security Unit

Dear Mr. Bud Mercer (ISU), Mr. Steve Sweeney (ISU), and Mr. Bill Cooper (VANOC):

I have framed my remarks this evening in an open letter to the organizations you represent, the Integrated Security Unit and the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee. I address it to you as their representatives, and not you personally. I do not direct these remarks, or any remarks this evening, at the Vancouver Police Department or the City of Vancouver.

I have framed my remarks as an open letter for this reason: like many citizens in Vancouver, British Columbia, and Canada, I have come to the sorry conclusion that the things we say, the things our community says, mean little to your organizations at this stage except as an aid in shifting your media lines.

The organizations I have worked with have been saying the same things about your activities for years now. Many others have been saying similar things. To suggest that your organizations have been as unresponsive and transparent as a brick wall would be to do a disservice to brick walls, many of which cheerfully host uncensored artwork and are a participating and contributing part of the community they serve.

I write my remarks in an open letter because nothing anyone says here, today, will make you change your plans or tactics at this late stage if what we have said hasn’t changed your mind to this point. I don’t know why you’re here, now, just fourteen weeks before the Olympics and after completing Operation Gold, buying all of the equipment that you are going to buy, and making all of the plans that you are going to make.

The adage better late than never has rarely seemed less true.

The people in this room know the difference between words and actions. I am communicating directly to them through this letter, although it is ostensibly written to you. Perhaps, in a parallel universe, a meeting like this could take place where VANOC would say "Yes, we have been pushing for tenant protections just like we pushed to legislate the paramedics back to work and for special trademark rules to protect the IOC franchise."

A universe where the ISU would say "Yes, we offer an unconditional written guarantee to refrain from asking our undercover officers and informants to instigate violence or assume the leadership of or change the direction of activist groups."

In such a universe we could have a fruitful discussion this evening.

Unfortunately, that is not this universe.


Three areas of concern
I am concerned with your willful and continuous disconnect from our community.

I am concerned with your active agenda to undermine the transparent and democratic operation of our government and avoid accountability.

Finally, I am ever surprised and dismayed by your prioritization of the overreaching demands of the International Olympic Committee, the so-called "security agenda", and the multinational sponsors of these Olympics, over our rights, the rights of Vancouverites, British Columbians, and Canadians.

On your disconnect from the community
It seems trite at this point to mention the Inner City Inclusive Commitment Statement and report that you broke your promises. But I will, and you did.

You promised to protect low income tenants. You did not do so.

You promised to leave a legacy of affordable housing. You abandoned that plan when it looked like it might cost more than anticipated.

You promised to arrange the Olympics so that they did not make the lives of the poorest and most marginalized in our society worse. Then you said you’d arrest those who squatted in your security zones, your leadership endorsed a plan to arrest the homeless who refused to report to shelters, and you ran two Olympic traffic lanes up the middle of Hastings Street.

You promised to fund a watchdog to ensure that you would keep your promises. That promise too was a lie, but hardly a surprising one.

If you tried to realize these promises, you have failed. I think we all know that, for the most part, you didn’t try.

Which brings me to accountability.

On accountability
When talking about accountability, what am I to say to representatives of the ISU who can spend, in partnership with the military and local police, a billion dollars, and when we ask for a line item accounting, be told that these matters are of such strategic importance that they could not possibly tell what was spent where? Ever?

When talking about accountability, what am I to say to representatives of VANOC, an organization that is funded by government, the majority of whose board is appointed by government, whose business plan is directed by government, and who, despite this, spent at least tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars convincing a court that they were exempt from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

That engaged in such anti-democratic conduct for the remarkable purpose of preventing women from competing equally in a sport that men can compete in?

What do you say to representatives of VANOC, a group already exempt from freedom of information laws, but who nonetheless pioneered the idea of a meeting where no minutes are kept so that freedom of information requests to government partners would not reveal what hidden policy agendas they were pursuing?

How can we as citizens demand any accountability when it is simply impossible to know who is steering the Olympic ship into the rocks at any one time? The Auditor General doesn’t get to audit the full Olympics, because he has not been given jurisdiction over VANOC, and similarly VANOC’s private auditor can’t access government without restriction like the Auditor General can.

Nobody is bottom lining the skyrocketing cost of this Olympics. Not one person. And at this point, nobody wants to. The only group that can be truly said to be bottom lining the Olympics has no financial responsibility for the Games going over budget. This group is, of course, the IOC.

On the demands of the IOC
It is difficult to fault the International Olympic Committee for asking for everything they want. Why wouldn’t they? Nobody in Vancouver can bring themselves to say no.

When the International Olympic Committee included in the Host City Contract a clause that asked that political messages be kept out of the sight of television cameras and spectators inside and outside of Olympic venues, why did nobody from VANOC bother to inform them that such a clause was impossible for the City to achieve in Canada, where we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Why when we ask, over and over and over, simple things like whether or not the police will back up VANOC security guards who prohibit "Free Tibet" t-shirts inside venues pursuant to the demands of the IOC, can we not get a straight answer? Will you or won’t you back those security guards?

Surely you cannot fault us for suggesting that it appears that those responsible for what are supposedly “our” Olympics seem completely indifferent to “us”, and so deferential to “them”.

The worst may be yet to come
Every day is another revelation of ISU partner agency clamp downs that unambiguously equate dissent to a security threat.

Yesterday it was the Canadian Border Service Agency detaining Amy Goodman, American celebrity newsreader for National Public Radio, and interrogating her about what she knows of anti-Olympic organizing in Canada. She apparently didn’t even know the Olympics were happening in Canada.

Each day too, another revelation of VANOC overreaching to stifle anti-Olympic expression. Yesterday, the news that VANOC artists could only say good things about the Olympics thanks to a contract VANOC obligated them to sign.

We are all breathless, shocked by what we have seen, and amazed we’ve come this far. How much further can your organizations go?

For one evening, our roles have changed
Your organizations have ignored our community’s concerns for so long. This evening, it is my luxury to ignore your concerns. Without wishing to be rude, or dramatic, I simply cannot be bothered to hear your media spin, yet again, about how protesters are the number one security threat to the Games, about how VANOC is so limited in mandate and budget, about how this body or that body is responsible for these broken promises as if you were not all just various arms of the same Government.

Just as, for the last five years, you had better things to do than listen to our community, this evening I have better things to do than listen to you. I wish you a good evening.

Thank you so much to Am Johal and the IOCC for putting this panel together, I have no idea how you did it, but bravo. This is truly the only accountability that anyone in Vancouver is likely to see around these Olympic Games.

Yours truly,

David Eby