Anti-Olmypic "Violence" increasing according to security expert

As many people that have followed the mainstream news have seen this weekend, a report has coming out warning that the anti-olympic violence has become increasingly violent, and that were some kind of crazy army that's gonna destroy vancouver in 2010 (well maybe not verbatim).

I think it's important to note a couple of things right off the bat, primarly that this anylsis' are of security consultants that are clearly looking for work. They are fabricating a security concern in order to rake in the millions come February 2010. As flattered as I am that they think our protests carry the ability to disrupt in that intensity, I have to strongly disagree.

The 19 violent acts mentioned have no examples other then that RBC has been repeatedly targeted with bricks, and on news 1130 the clock being paint bombed.

I think perhaps it's time for Vancouver, at least in the left/housing movement to have a serious discussion on the discourse of what's violent in protests. I think that we have one word for violence in the english language which is problematic and undescripitave as there are many categories of violence.

Is throwing a brick at a window violent? I'd have to disagree, we can debate the effectiveness of the tactic, but the window doesn't bleed, which I guess is where my definetion lies, the hurting of human or non-human life. I have a real problem with property damage being called violent, because so very often the pacifist that would imply this as violence would fail to call a higher foul on the police assaulting demonstratiors/homeless/indigenous. If people have read about the WTO protests of 99 in seatle, this is a great example. When local poor people joined anarchists smashing up corporate property, and the poor people looted (stole to survive), liberal pacfists held them and/or assaulted them until police arrived to finish the job. Which here is the greater violence? Poor people looting to survive? or assaulting poor people and anarchists for property damage?

For anybody that has been to some of the more militant protests and disagrees with violence, I'd like to note once again, who initiates the violence? Do you really expect us to sit there while the police get their shots in and not protect ourselves? If you were being assaulted in a dark alley, I'd wager you'd want my help to defend you.

I find it really troubling that people feel the state should have the monopoly on violence, because if not "we'd break into chaos" or some other equivalent rhetoric. Aren't we already in chaos? There's 900,000 children living below the poverty line in this country according to mainstream estimates of conservative counts. Is the throwing of a brick at parliment hill for this systematic murder (poverty kills, just like ciggarettes, or a brick to the head) violence, and even if it is, isn't it to stop a greater violence?

And I do feel that rhetoric as "you can't fight hate with hate" is indoctrinated bullshit. There will be no critical mass of people "shaming" the government into doing what we want. They don't care. The'y know there evil. They've already sold their soul for millions. We will not "send enough good energy into the world" to solve this. Children hungry, people homeless, that's real and tangible. I can see that, I see it every single day. I can't see the energy, or faith, or divinity people speak of.

So in closing, I wish dissent to this country was a very real, very agressive threat to it's poverty and power, but this article provides false hope to people like me, and fear to those unwilling to do more then hold a banner.