Thanks for this awesome interview. I saw many times in my life leftists reformists making difference between good protesters and bad giving legitimacy to the police and mainstream medias discourse against the people who are fighting the system of destruction by attacking him and his material existence. That's one of the limits of the so-called diversity of tactics when tactics of negociating, asking and demanding to the state are in contradiction with the people involved in militant tactics against the state reality as a tool of the capitalist, colonialist, patriarchal... war against life and the oppress as a part of the exploited. That's a question not so adressed in the social movement.     

I like this guy.
The NLG is cool!
I have respect for these guys!

Good work Larry!  I would like to see a video response from the BCCLA, too.  Can the Coop contact David Eby and request an interview?  Would Pivot Legal Society have the same editorial position toward some protests?  A great opportunity for progressive lawyers to define themselves--which side are you on?

Bern.

but they are ethically required to zealously guard their clients' rights. An attorney who makes statements like those made by the BCCLA guy should absolutely *not* represent *any* person arrested at a demonstration; the attorney made statements which could prejudice his clients' interests, and could serve to inflame a jury against his and other attorneys' clients.

At the same time, the presence of attorneys as legal observers is problematic if there is the least chance that those attorneys could be called as witnesses in cases involving their own clients, or others arrested at the same protest. There's a huge possiblity that their testimony on the behalf of another protestor could be used against their client. Attorneys *should* train legal observers, and train them to *observe facts*, *legally useful facts*, but not to make *legal judgments* about those facts. if a legal observer is called to testify in a US court, his or her testimony will be limited to facts and fact patterns that he or she personally observed, and speculation or the application of judgment about how the facts or fact patterns comport with the law will not be asked for, nor listened to. It's up to the jury to apply the law to the facts and come up with a verdict.

I'm incredibly troubled by the video, not that I don't perhaps agree with some of the comments being said but that Larry so quickly denounces Vancouver;s (and Canada's for that matter) first ever legal observer program, should these organizations a) not be working together, or at least b) be respectful of one another to the point where they could discuss these things in private NOT to the media where the reputation and hard work of the program gets immediately denounced and rather unfairly in my opinion.
It is completely unproductive to go against the people you essentially hold similar views with...are they not all working towards protecting the civil rights and freedoms of people within Canada; enabling people to peacefully voice their opinions without be unduly punished for it?
I'm not saying what should and should not have been done because Larry has every right to say what he wants but in the interests of not denouncing the allies Larry could have resisted the temptation of voicing his discontent to a video camera that has now made it onto the internet and other media outlets.
By all means mistakes happen, but the BCCLA legal observers do not deserve this, they have worked hard to volunteer for these protest events to protect the civil liberties of those in attendance - should they really be painted in this light?

Not sure if this is a temporary issue with your server - or my internet - but the video feed keeps pausing to stream. Very irritating, and I gave up.

Sigh. Text is so much more satisfying. I can read it at my own pace. Video is often slow moving and dull and I have no control over the speed that I receive information.