Making the world a better place is not an easy thing to do. Indeed, it is a long and difficult process to create even a small bubble of peace in an area rife with conflict, or to alleviate a tiny portion of homelessness. However, it should at the very least be safe to advocate for peace, shelter for all, and an environment that is not poisoned. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Speaking out is no longer safe. For too many of us, the reality of caring for the world around us is made dangerous by conscious, premeditated actions of police forces.

Preventative detention, use of chemical weapons against peaceful protesters, even extra-judicial execution of dissidents are a reality to which many activists can testify. Just ask Jaggi Singh and other Canadian activists, who endure repeated police harassment; the many anti-globalisation protesters, who routinely experience pepper spray, police dogs and other agents of intimidation; and the family of Dudley George, who was shot by the Ontario Provincial Police during a protest calling for Native land rights at Stoney Point in southwestern Ontario. The reality of such actions against protesters is something many of us are not comfortable acknowledging, yet they do occur to people who speak out against the established order.

Those of us involved with street-level public dissent have often been targets of police violence and abuse of power. My own experience ranges from being arrested on such absurd charges as unlawful handbill distribution to assault in police custody.

However, too many people have directly experienced more vicious forms of violence. Most frightening, perhaps, is the general acceptance of police violence, including the use of dogs and projectile weapons, against those who oppose war, poverty, homelessness, and forms of state-sanctioned violence and suffering.

We can watch the news, see rubber bullets fly, and witness journalists and activists exercising their democratic rights being beaten by the police, and then accept a statement from politicians that there were no incidents of violence. We can read that someone has been hospitalized with a crushed larynx and believe that the police acted with restraint. Police use of violence can be contained only by public opposition.

Twice – once in 1999 and again in the late summer and early fall of 2001 – I asked activists in Canada to fill out a survey about their experiences with police violence.

In 1999 I received 68 responses, including two from people who said they had not directly experienced police violence. The levels of violence that were reported ranged from pushing, to pepper spraying, to assault with a baton.

In 2001 I received 51 responses, including one from a person who did not directly experience police violence. The level of violence reported in this second survey was much broader and more intense than that reported in 1999. Respondents not only described incidents such as pushing, assaults with a baton, but also reported that they had been pepper sprayed, attacked by police dogs, and hit by tear-gas canisters and plastic bullets.

The nature of political activities people were involved has not changed since 1999 and ranges from leaflet distribution, to road blockades, to small-scale vandalism. Activists participating in peaceful demonstrations with parade permits have been assaulted as have people involved in spontaneous, more militant efforts. There were also examples of police violence towards people who are homeless, pan-handling, seeking police assistance in domestic abuse situations, and in other situations that did not involve activism.

Admittedly, my surveys are not scientific. However, they do cover a cross section of activists, from clergy to students, from the unemployed to doctors, from journalists to musicians. People responded from Victoria to St. John’s. Their stories confirmed that violence will be directed at protesters, indeed at anyone who steps out of line.

Perhaps not unexpectedly, activists related that their experiences with violence had an ‘either-or’ effect on them – it either discouraged them from participating in further actions, or it motivated them to strive even harder to transform the world.

Notable in the responses to the second survey were reports of an increase in the use of intimidation and harassment, both in conjunction with violence or separate from protests but directed at activists. Examples include: strip searches in custody in front of cameras, with the images displayed in the lobby of the police station; questioning of people about the activities of activists; threatening to sue protest organizers; stealing and destroying personal property; mass searches of people trying to enter a protest zone; and demanding identification from people entering a protest zone.

While these actions by the police are not technically violent, they do contribute to creating an atmosphere of fear. When people resist illegal or arbitrary police actions, such as random searches, they can end up being violently assaulted by police and even arrested.

While all of these things were happening prior to the September 11 air attacks, times may become particularly difficult for activists. Proposed legislative changes in the aftermath of the September 11 air attacks codify existing police practices and add the military formally to the mix.

However, a small movement had begun to emerge to counter the police. Much of this ‘fight-back’ has been carried out on individual basis. For example, activists have launched four lawsuits against police in Toronto as a result of their actions at demonstrations. Forms of collective self-defence have also been developed, and a process of “unarresting” has appeared at demonstrations. There has also been a major public inquiry involving the RCMP.

Trying to ensure police officer and force accountability is not an easy task, yet it is an essential part of resisting state-sanctioned and funded violence. Since September 11, police forces and their political supporters have worked hard to ensure that increasingly oppressive police tactics are not only permitted but encouraged. From preventative detention, to granting the military the right to use force when removing people from any site declared a military zone, the Canadian state is implementing many of the practices used in apartheid-era South Africa, Pinochet’s Chile, and Indonesia during its occupation of East Timor.

The actual effects on dissent will likely be mostly psychological. We have already experienced periods such as the early 1980s, when police raided the offices and homes of peace activists. We have spent enough time in the streets to know that speaking out means risking a clubbing, tear gas, projectile weapons, charges on horseback and arbitrary arrest and detention, before, during, and even after demonstrations.

We know that too many of our elected politicians have contempt for our right to public dissent. Remember Prime Minister Jean Chretien, with his hands around the throat of a person protesting cuts to employment insurance? Politicians are frequently referring to protesters as ‘thugs’. Violence from the state, through its paid agents, is all too common.

The state increases its oppression and police forces increase their crackdowns when change is in the air. The rise of the anti-globalization movement has shown that we are in potentially revolutionary times. Violence is one of the main tools used to control dissent, and we are experiencing it with ever increasing frequency and intensity.

Violence by the police must be met publicly and relentlessly. Those comfortable with traditional politics should write letters and lobby their politicians and police-services board. The public should demand that police not be permitted to use violence against people walking on picket lines, participating at demonstrations, or otherwise publicly expressing dissent.

Activists who are harassed by the police should also use the civil courts more often than they currently do. People participating in protests should also take more in-depth training in creative resistance and non-violent forms of self-defence.

However, both surveys make it clear that the most effective tool for self-defence and persistence is found in ongoing supportive communities. These are essential for activists. Trying to be tough and deal with violence and harassment on one’s own just doesn’t work in the long term. People who have been active for decades all reported that having a supportive community was the real difference. Supportive communities can include faith organisations, anarchist affinity groups, cultural collectives, and extended family networks. No one can struggle in isolation for the long term. And in periods of increased oppression, this support is even more important.

The problems we face in Canada are not unique. Jude McCulloch’s Blue Army: Paramilitary Policing in Australia is just one book that explores the use, in other countries, of police to crack down on dissent. This is a global phenomenon.

Yet, as with all forms of global oppression, resistance arises wherever the police attack those who dare to challenge the evils of poverty, war, racism, sexism, homophobia, hunger and homelessness. Whether expressed through the Reclaim the Streets movement or the International Day Against Police Brutality, resistance is global.

Brian Burch is a Toronto based worker-priest, writer, poet, activist, and non-violence trainer. His work has appeared in publications as diverse as Catholic New Times and The Earth First! Journal. His poetry is included in Visions of Poesy: An Anthology of 20th Century Anarchist Poets (Freedom Press) and Resist! (Fernwood Publishers). He is currently a member of the Peace Troupe, an initiative of the Mennonite Conference of Eastern Canada, which conducts workshops on issues such as racism and domestic violence in light of traditional Mennonite peace theology.