Hey VMC and TMC! Can we move on from the endless posts about the black bloc and how awful Dobbin and Rebick and co. are, and cover some other issues please? Or at least stop featuring all these stories? Can we accept that in order to grow our movement we need to make it even just a little bit palatable to the 95% or whatever number of people in Canada are getting their info from the mainstream media?

*Please* let's take some of this energy spent black-bloc-back-and-forth-blogging and use it to cover some of the other stuff taking place in our cities! 

 I have a few problems with your argument. My response constitutes an opinion, just to make that clear (I'd hate to get in trouble for not doing that...).

1. I can't ignore the irony of using an opinion piece to criticize someone else's use of opinion pieces. I don't always agree with everything Mr. Jay offers up, but I appreciate his passion and perspective, especially in light of the high emotions that most people were feeling in the midst and aftermath of the G20 debacle. I agree with this though: If he is going to offer up op-eds laced with hyperbole, a disclaimer that he is doing so would be a good thing.

2. Bloc infiltration: Whether the undercover cops were provocateurs or not, infiltration is proven. This video alone, even if you  discount every other one, shows that plainclothes infiltrators were in Black Bloc garb and moving among the protesters.

3. Outwitted or standing down: We won't know if the ISU stood down to allow the Black Bloc tactics or whether they were somehow outwitted unless a full public inquiry is conducted. Hell, even then it's a crap shoot at best. That leaves using a bit of logic to try to form an opinion. Personally, I find it unlikely that the ISU was just outwitted and far more believable that they simply expected and wanted the vandalism to occur. I also consider it plausible that provocateurs were responsible for some of the damage and find it suspicious that so many cruisers were abandoned in the Black Bloc path. I leave room for that opinion to be wrong and wouldn't state it as fact, but the circumstantial evidence is compelling.

4. "Legal framework": Yeah, that's a poor choice of words on his part. "Excuse to develop a justification" might be more applicable, but the concept (if you're not looking for things to pick on Jay for) is fairly accepted and getting a lot of credible support even among activists. I understand and empathize with those who ascribe to Black Bloc tactics, but I think that there are a couple points in regards to corporate vandalism that bear serious discussion: First, that these tactics do distract from the message in so much that the MSM is waiting for the vandalism so they can take advantage f the drama and photo ops. In the absence of said drama, they might actually pay attention to the real reasons for dissent. Second, (and most relative to Jay's apparent argument) that the tactics and 'uniforms' provide the state police with every opportunity to act as povocateurs and every excuse to justify their fascist behavior in the aftermath. Black Bloc'ing has had some admirable successes, but it seems to be a self-defeating tactic at the moment.

5. What you really seem to be critical of: It might just be me, but I 'got' most that you are pissed with Jay for criticizing the Bloc tactics and not standing in solidarity with them as is the activist-PC status quo. You're allowed your opinion, but really, trying to hide it behind a 'serious critique' of Jay's journalistic integrity seems a bit fallacious. An ad hominem attack, which is what I mostly consider this opinion piece to be, doesn't seem like the logical way to go about making your point, and I do think you have a valid one buried under your own hyperbole.

This probably sounds like I'm practicing apologetics for Paul Jay, but that's not my intent. To re-state it, I think you do make a very valid point in suggesting that, if he's going to offer op-eds, he should say so. He's allowed to as an editor, but making it clear when he is doing so would help clarify when he has his opinion hat on as opposed to his 'just-the-facts' hat on.

The Black Bloc tactic debate needs to happen though. There are some legitimate tactical considerations to argue through. Solidarity is a good thing, but if we abandon a valid debate because we're afraid of threatening that solidarity, then we have bigger problems.

i also watched the video, a bunch of (very) ugly plain clothes pigs providing security for a snatch squad.  doesn't prove shit, and it certainly doesn't prove that the black bloc was infiltrated (as there is no black bloc in this action, or in this area).

the real point of paul jay's allegations isn't his 'politics' per se, but his unsubstantiated allegations that the black bloc was infiltrated, which is a way of undermining the militant resistance and which has obvious political motivations (ie it has been promoted liberal reformists and pacifists as a way of showing the 'incorrectness' of the black bloc tactic).

caribou jamelia .... you distort what the lawyer Morton says. His comment about infiltration was responding to a direct question about people involved in the black block tactic (see transcript below).

It's clear from everything Jay has reported - that he says the primary motive of the police was to establish a 'martial law' model for the future in order to suppress dissent to elite economic policies. This includes the use of the Public Works Protection Act. He says the Black Bloc tactic helped create the conditions for mass arrests. Whether the Black Bloc people were so brilliant they evaded the police, or whether the police allowed them to do so, changes little. Although the evidence he and others have presented makes a very strong case that the police chose to hang back for quite some time.

The point is that the tactic was the rational for mass arrests. It’s clear from London to Pittsburgh, mass arrests follow Black Bloc tactics. You should be honest about all of this, provoking a confrontation between the mass of demonstrators and the police was the tactic’s objective. It doesn’t require any infiltration for this piece of theatre to play out. It’s not much of a stretch given how predictable all this is that the police chose to take advantage of it . . . if not directly provoke it (which can’t be ruled out).

You can attack Jay or others but you cannot escape the fact that the movement is fed up with these infantile self-indulgent ‘tactics’. False flag or not, from the Reichstag Fire and so on, this is how police states are built. Why? Because public opinion tends to side with order and is afraid of chaos. Every fascist knows it and plays on it. That’s the real question: do you want to build a movement or play out some ‘vanguard’ ego trip? Because what you do now is rely on liberal democracy, that the consequences of your actions won’t be so serious. But some day, they will be. And detention won’t be for a few days or months, but for years and maybe more.

Below is the transcript of Morton’s interview with Jay. The main point here is how you chose to distort what Morton says. It’s obvious he is referring to people involved with the BB. The main quote is this:

“MORTON: Paul, I think they know more than just who these people are. I think they had information, either from an informant or from undercover officers who were present, perhaps at gatherings of people, and actually knew precisely what was being planned, because that's what they've alleged in this conspiracy charge.”

Here is more of the transcript, available a the TRNN site, so people can see the quote in context.

“MORTON: But as you know, last night a lot of the violence that erupted was actually right at Queen's Park, and that's where those people who were demonstrating very peacefully, as I understand from the media reports, were subjected to all sorts of violence on the part of the police.

JAY: Now, what started all the real violent activity—although there had been some the day before and two days before—but the big violent activity was inaugurated by the black bloc tactic. Apparently, according to the police chief, there was a march going on the fence, and then they turned from the fence. These people calling themselves the black bloc run up Yonge Street, break some windows. There's no police in sight. Is there evidence that the police had infiltrated the black bloc and then perhaps should have known what going to happen?

MORTON: My understanding is that they've clearly infiltrated it, going back as far as perhaps April 2009. And given the number of arrests yesterday morning, just before any of these incidents took place, they obviously knew who was allegedly involved in planning these things, and they've charged them all with conspiracy to commit a whole number of indictable offenses. And the ones that are in custody will probably remain there for at least the immediate future.

JAY: And in fact the chief, in a press conference I attended where I asked him a few questions, he actually talks about how we know who the leaders are, we know who the people are. I mean, it suggests, if you know all of that, why didn't you know they were planning to turn and run up Yonge Street?

MORTON: Paul, I think they know more than just who these people are. I think they had information, either from an informant or from undercover officers who were present, perhaps at gatherings of people, and actually knew precisely what was being planned, because that's what they've alleged in this conspiracy charge.

JAY: So if they know, then what does one think? Why would they have gone, apparently, 10 or 15 minutes or longer on Yonge Street? And we have footage of what was happening, and there is no police officer in sight.

MORTON: Well, I guess there are only two explanations. One would be that they simply screwed it up, and the other would be that perhaps some of what happened yesterday justifies the $1 billion spent on security and will turn some people, unfortunately, against protests of any kind.”