How We See It – The Vancouver Five (1983)

Published in Open Road, No. 15 Spring 1983

We have been charged by the Canadian criminal justice system with a variety of offences ranging from car theft to conspiracy to sabotage the Cold Lake Air Force base in Alberta. We would like to charge the Canadian government and imperialist corporate interests in Canada with crimes against the earth, attempted genocide of the native peoples, and responsibility for crippling the lives of the vast majority of the people.

For centuries now, the European imperialist economic system has expanded, extending its domination throughout the Western world until today we see it infesting every corner of the globe. Today imperialism has as its economic base multinational corporations with their offices, factories, and resource industries implanted in every country of the western world. Because these monolithic networks of industry generate most of the jobs and capital in any given region, they also have a great deal of influence over the government policy of that region through the economic power that they wield. Tragically, this economic system does not merely limit itself to the effect it has on how people make their living, but spills over and imprints its values and principles on every aspect of our lives. Through ownership and control of the factories, offices, mines, the entertainment industry, the mass media, and research and development facilities, the values of the multi-national corporations permeate our society so totally that these values and their accompanying way of life are not questioned by the people.

The relations of the marketplace, which are characterized by vicious competition and hierarchy, are reflected in our personal relationships where men dominate and control women and children. People in general are defined in terms of their relationship to the marketplace, rather than in terms of who they really are. The richness and depth of the human potential is stunted by the limits that the schools, jobs, and institutions of this society put on human growth from womb to tomb. The possibilities of becoming a multi-faceted individual are virtually non-existent.

In the industrialized society, the value of all living things is defined by their profit value in relation to business. A person’s value and identity are determined by their job, their economic role, so if they are unemployed by the system, they are considered useless and a burden.

Cheap labour

People in the so-called Third World are only valued as a source of cheap labour. The indigenous peoples are not only considered valueless on the marketplace because they refuse to be culturally-integrated, but are also seen as a serious liability to the system because they resist the encroachment of industrialization on their land. Indigenous and Third World peoples who resist integration into the industrial society become targets of insidious genocide programmes through forced sterilization, forced relocation, starvation, terrorism, and torture.

All living things are objectified as though they were consumer products produced by god’s factory in the sky. Women are sexual commodities, used to both sell consumer products through their sexuality as well as to provide sex for men. If a child should result from the woman’s role as sex object, then she is used as a house-wife, a slave labourer in the home.

Men have always ruled societies throughout history. There is a direct correlation between the brutal reality of men’s domination of women and the formation of the exploitive values and structures so extensive and basic in the world today. The importance of the struggle against the patriarchy is critical, for it is the only hope for the liberation of half the population. We must embrace the vision of feminist theory and see all other theories for social change as grossly inadequate if they are not based in a radical critique of the patriarchy.

Treated as commodities

In the western techno-patriarchy, living creatures are not respected and valued for their existence, but are treated as commodities. Seals are pelts, cows are beef, deer are game, dogs are pets, and unwanted pets are vivisection material.

To industrial man, the natural world is a resource base to be used for industrial development. For example, forests that cannot be used for the forest industry are considered wastelands. The value of trees as homes for a myriad of living creatures, as a binding force for the earth, and as aesthetic beauty, is not recognized by industrial man.

This one-dimensional. simple perspective on life is conditioned into us from birth so that as adults the concepts of industrial growth, development, progress and profit are no longer questioned. We have become industrial consumers who are incapable of respecting the earth or realizing the rich potential as human beings within ourselves. We have become divested of the ability to think deeply and independently, and robbed of the spirit to revolt!

We have lost out interconnectedness with, and respect for the ecology of life. We are unable to recognize that the survival of life is obviously threatened by the technological path. We must adopt a strong position of resisting the modern technological state, opposing industrialization and fighting large-scale resource extraction. The scale and character of human working activity must be determined by basic human needs and by a deep respect for all living beings and habitats, not by greed, consumerism and species superiority.

The modern State’s ability and power to influence, brainwash and control human beings has been greatly extended through advanced technology. The dominant character of the State permeates all areas of human activity, even the very psychology of people. Increasingly, people in regions where the technological State has extended, feel not so much dominated as dependant upon the artificial world that the modern State is creating.

Throughout the world, imperialism and State power is protected by nuclear arms; the monster of the military-industrial complex. The vast array of research and development facilities, industries and armed forces bases that make up the military-industrial complex, are a self- perpetuating and powerful force in the industrial State that is capable of influencing government policy in favour of increased weapons spending. Nuclear weapons development is not only a product of the military complex’s continual momentum to expand and build new weapons systems, but is also the final solution to the threat that Third World liberation movements pose to American and Soviet imperialism.

Nuclear threat

By and large, the peace movement attributes the nuclear arms race to an irrational mutual ideological conflict between U.S. and the U.S.S.R.. However, since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, the threat of nuclear war has almost exclusively been directed against the Third World countries in the midst of liberation struggles, such as Vietnam. Cuba, Korea… Any major nuclear confrontation between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. will inevitably be the result of an escalation stemming from superpower interference in a country where an oppressed people are struggling to free themselves!

How long are we going to remain spectators to the rape of the earth by mining, lumbering and rampant industrial development? How long are we going to tolerate men’s domination of and brutality towards women? How long are we going to allow the government to continue to participate in the escalation of nuclear terrorism? How long are we going to allow the mindless institutions of this industrial society to impoverish our minds, bodies and spirits? Are we going to continue in our unquestioning belief in the capitalist/materialist gods of industrial development, profit at all cost, and high technology?

The fundamental orientations of anarchism, feminism and environmentalism are equally essential in the quest for a liberated society. We must truly integrate these trains of radical critique and practice, in order that all manifestations, including the philosophical precepts of the imperialist techno-patriarchy can be rooted out.

It is time that we awaken our spirit of revolt and free our minds from their shackles so that we will be capable of the wonderful task of building a strong, militant resistance movement to free the people and protect the earth.

Oakalla Prison, February, 1983

Statement to the People – Four of the Vancouver Five (1983)

Published in the Free the Five Newsletter, No. 7, November 1983

Much of the political work done around our case has been centered on the issues of a “right to a fair trial” and abuses of process by the media, police, and prosecution. We feel that it’s undesirable for progressive & sympathetic people to focus on these issues. When people call for a fair trial they are implicitly stating that they accept the right of the government to try us, & are only objecting to the abnormal & “unfair” procedure. Consciously or not, they are legitimizing the moral authority of the law & the right of the government to make & enforce laws.

We reject the authority of the government. We see it as a powerful force of oppression in the world. It is a force which has been waging three hundred years of genocidal war against the Indians, the original inhabitants of this land, & which not only sanctions but facilitates corporate investment in the Third World, blood money that maintains brutal dictatorships. The government plans & executes massive attacks on the environment, participates eagerly in the global arms race, & fundamentally, directs & maintains our society in its violence & blindness.

We are dealing with the courts in a legalistic manner in an attempt to prevent them from crucifying us, & we can certainly see the benefits of pressuring the state to curb their more blatant manipulations. However, the benefits of civil liberties agitation only come at the cost of reinforcing political concepts that we reject. We would like to see the political work done on our case center around what we consider to be the real issues: environmentalism, feminism, anti-imperialism, & radical activism. We appreciate all the efforts people have made to help us, but we see the need to stress the politics that are of primary importance to the peoples of the world.

– Gerry, Ann, Doug, Brent

Interview with the Vancouver 5:

Resistance VS Protest (1983)

Published in Kick it Over, No. 8, September 1983

In response to a set of questions sent to Ann Hansen and Brent Taylor (two of the five people sitting in Oakalla Prison charged with various political offences) we have received the following. It has been requested that we do not attribute any of the responses to one or the other directly.

Here is a brief summary of the charges and what’s been happening with them:

The five are facing a total of 25 charges and if found guilty will most likely get life sentences. The charges range from auto theft to conspiracy charges (see box for a total list). They are to have a set of four trials in B.C. and one trial in Toronto. There was recently a decision made in the bowels of “justice’’ to change the British Columbia trials to New Westminster from Vancouver. This change makes it extremely difficult for the Vancouver support group to attend the trials on a daily basis. It also appears likely to result in a more reactionary panel of jury members. The first set of trials is scheduled to begin September 12, 1983.

Kick It Over (1): Do you feel that pacifism in future years will create meaningful social change as opposed to reformism? Do you see pacifism as a tactic in relation to a revolutionary resistance perspective?

Answer: First of all, pacifism is not simply a tool or a tactic. Pacifism is actually a fundamental set of moral beliefs which determine how one lives one’s life, and therefore, how one acts politically. Pacifism should be respected as an individual choice. However, pacifism has been elevated to a theory for revolutionary social change and is heralded as the process and the means we must adhere to. When assertions are made that only a pacifist movement will enable us to create a better world, our understanding of historical and present day reality compels us to disagree.

In the “Peace Movement” in North America, the ideals of pacifism are being applied very dogmatically to a mass social struggle, and have become entrenched as “ideology of non-violence”. Often times, adherence to the ideology appears to actually take precedence over the realization of the goals we are seeking ….

Granted, it would be much nicer if revolutionary change could come about according to pacifist practice. Unfortunately however, it is doubtful that is the case, and thus, it is wrong to base our future on such assumptions.

Nevertheless, there is a great deal of potential for effective use of non-violent tactics in the liberation process. It is, in fact, absurd to imagine that a revolutionary movement could ever exist without mass participation in non-violent mobilizations ….

However, the same cannot be said about pacifism. If we, as a movement, restrict ourselves to non-violent tactics only — in other words, if we are a strictly pacifist movement — we will continue to make definite advances from here, but eventually, we will find ourselves prevented from going any further by the repressive forces of the State ….

This does not mean that the ends justify any means. The process that we follow is extremely important, and most certainly we must at all times be guided by strong moral concerns and a true reverence for life, yet sometimes reality necessitates certain means. We live in a world of violence but it is critical that we always recognize that such violence is not of our choosing. In this sense, reality also justifies the use of certain means; even those means which go beyond the limitations of pacifism.

It is too simplistic to reject revolutionary violence along with the horrible indiscriminate magnitude of reactionary violence, just because both are violence. To equate both so simplistically removes them from the context of social reality, and in doing so ignores the essence of each — the meaning and purpose for which they are employed. To then determine the limits of our own practice on the basis of such an artificial equation is obviously wrong ….

The way we hope to live in that future is not necessarily a realistic way to live now ….

It is true that all revolutionary movements in power have become Statist regimes, but it is false to conclude that this is because violent tactics were used during their liberation process. Instead, it should be attributed to the fact that such movements operated according to an authoritarian Statist ideology.

KIO (2): When you speak of the need to reject industrial civilization, is it not possible to utilize such technological advances for the good of the Earth’s people and the Earth itself? If you believe that such is not the case, please explain your position.

Ans: Further technological advancements are not necessary for the good of the Earth’s people or the Earth; in fact, under the present world order, any further advancements will only benefit the profits of the corporations and the men that run them.

For many, many centuries human beings have survived and developed civilizations on this earth that were rich spiritually, intellectually, and culturally without industrialism or advanced technology. As well, their survival was not at the expense of hundreds of animal species and environmental destruction. Somehow people managed to hunt, fish, and grow food without General Foods or Safeway. Dances, music, and stories flourished without RCA, Sam the Record Man and Harlequin Romances ….

The work with machines offered by industrialism alienates people from each other and from the natural functions of the Earth. Whether industrialism exists in the socialist or capitalist bloc, the work still remains alienating and the Earth must be constantly disembowelled so that machines, fuels, and products can be made. The only real difference is that the profits in socialist countries are more equally distributed than in capitalist regimes …

KIO (3): When you refer to the need to build an active resistance, would you define. in what manner it should appear?

Ans: We don’t envision one particular form in which an active resistance movement should appear, but believe that what needs to happen is for a resistance mentality to take root among activists in Canada. From this radical consciousness, active resistance will then appear in various forms and many different struggles.

To a great extent the movement now operates with a protest mentality which unfortunately fosters wide spread reformist illusions about what kind of struggle is necessary to realize the goals we seek. Protest attempts to influence the decisions of those in power by showing public disagreement with their policies Because we imagine that through protest the powerful will eventually be pressured to change, we are mistakenly wholly engaged in a form of struggle in which the outcome is ultimately left in the hands of those we oppose ….

A resistance mentality is based upon the premise that the powerful will ignore our protests, and therefore that we must build a movement with the commitment and determination to utilize means of struggle by which we ourselves can stop the projects that we oppose ….

A resistance movement would not be limited by legalities when there is a need for direct confrontation: such a militant approach is definitely necessary when we are confronted with life-threatening situations; in particular, the ongoing destruction and polluting of the environment or the build up of nuclear arsenals and the war machine….

KIO (4): What motive has the State in mind when they are intent on having 4 separate trials instead of one big event for the B.C. charges?

Ans: The separation of trials is a commonly used counter-insurgency technique against political prisoners internationally. This technique is aimed at taking the political content out of the trial and criminalizing it as much as possible. In our case we will face charges of conspiracy to rob a Brinks guard, car theft, possession of weapons and stolen property in the first trial. The second trial will hear the Red Hot Video charges; the third trial will be the bombing of Dunsmuir sub-station, conspiracy and sabotage of Cold Lake Air Base, Terry Fox icebreaker and conspiracy to sabotage Cheekeye-Dunsmuir, and the fourth trial will be an IGA robbery.

The first trial will be an attempt to criminalize us, remove any political motives from the charges. The trial will be publicized, and through the media the stage will be set for the rest of the trials. Before we are tried on the Red Hot Video charges, the jury will already have read in the paper of an alleged Brinks guard robbery, weapons and stolen vehicles, divorced from any political context ….

KIO (5): What motive does the State have in asking that the trials be undertaken in New Westminster as opposed to Vancouver?

Ans: The State’s motive in moving the location of the trials is twofold, and is part of an ongoing systematic effort of carefully planned harassment to hinder, in all possible ways, our defence. On the one hand, they want to make it as difficult as possible for our friends and supporters to attend the trials. It will be much more difficult for people from Vancouver to attend now that they will have to travel every day to New Westminster. The State hopes that the time and energy wasted, and the complications that this daily travel will incur, will wear down our support. Also, the courtrooms in New Westminster are much smaller than the large trial courts in Vancouver, and in this way too, they can ensure that fewer people will be able to observe the farcical ritual of “justice” unfold ….

The second motive concerns jury selection. The potential jury members for a trial in New Westminster are drawn from the voting lists of municipalities that are generally recognized as being more reactionary than Vancouver. In this sense, the switching of the trial location is undertaken to aid in ensuring convictions ….

KIO (6): You accepted the blackmail offer from the State for a shortened version of a preliminary hearing, but with little or no warning at the last moment they (the State functionaries) chose to proceed by Direct Indictment. Why in your opinion, did the State authorities renege on their promised offer? How do you feel about this denial of due process?

Ans: We believe that the State reneged on its first offer because they wanted to cut court costs to the minimal and didn’t want any more publicity of this case than is absolutely necessary. What with funding the infrastructure for the development of North East Coal, B.C. Place and other scams, the Social Credit party can’t afford the court costs of a preliminary hearing for a group of people in direct opposition to their projects.

But. this does not surprise us in the least. It is an illusion to expect that anyone in this society, particularly political radicals, can obtain a fair trial. The concept of a fair trial within the bourgeois justice system is an illusion that hopefully, if nothing else, this case will dispel.

KIO (7): Now that the State has charged you with the Litton bombing, when do you expect that you will be brought to Toronto to face those charges?

Ans: We haven’t been informed of when we will be taken to Toronto, but it’s pretty certain that it won’t be until all the trials are finished with here in B.C. Most likely that won’t be until February or March of 1984. Expect a preliminary hearing regarding Litton within a month or two of then.

KIO (8): Do you believe that the demands of middle class feminists can be transcended by radical feminists into a radical vision and perspective?

Ans: Radical feminists cannot achieve their vision through middle class demands such as “equal pay for work of equal value”, “more day care centres” etc. These demands are for the middle class feminists to make. Radical feminists have a responsibility to break new ground, to create radical demands, to be guided by their own truths rather than catering to the mass mentality.

The demands of middle class feminists are rooted in an acceptance of the prevailing patriarchal order, values, and way of life. Equal pay for work implies the acceptance of multinational corporations, government, and the jobs they offer. As well, womyn who wish to succeed in the patriarchy must become competitive, aggressive female replicas of men. In effect, these demands would reform the patriarchy so that middle class womyn would gain more benefits from the system thus strengthening the patriarchy by making it appear less oppressive.

In order to end the patriarchy, womyn must break with it to form communities of their own with their own values and ways of life that can form the basis of a womyn’s resistance movement. This break with the patriarchy is natural for a liberated womyn because she can no longer express herself or live her life within the patriarchal workplace, justice system, entertainment industry, and sciences. Her values, her speech, her dress, her behavior are in constant conflict with the patriarchal society and so rather than submit, she is compelled to resist ….

KIO (9): Lastly, is there anything you all wish to add to what has already been said above?

Ans: We look forward to meeting, and having discussions with, a lot of people when we are in Toronto, and hopefully making many new friendships. So we certainly hope that people will be into visiting us regularly at whatever prisons they cage us in there.

It has been good to read that many people active in Ontario have been seriously analysing the actions of the police regarding the “search for the Litton bombers”, and recognize that, in the face of police harassment and intimidation tactics, a policy of complete non-collaboration with the enemy is absolutely necessary. This sort of political analysis is a welcome development ….

Lastly, we want to thank those people in Toronto, and elsewhere for that matter, who have been supporting us thus far, and have been working to raise awareness and understanding of, and around, our case. We appreciate such efforts immensely. Take good care of yourselves. Be strong and resist!

“We Are Political Prisoners…” – Ann Hansen (1985)

Published in the Free the Five Newsletter, March 1985 (a slightly longer version of this article, titled “Global Resistance” appeared in Bulldozer No. 08, Summer 1985)

Although we feel isolated & fragmented at times in Canada, we are actually a part of a huge global resistance movement made up of many different groups with unique philosophies but who are united in their opposition to imperialism. We must not become despondent with feelings of hopelessness but gain strength by opening our minds beyond our immediate environment to identify with the struggles & victories that are going on all around us. When we can see, hear & feel for thousands of miles then the limitations & hardships of our immediate environment will become nothing.

Just as we must learn to see the pattern & unity of the global resistance movement, there is also a pattern & practise that is commonly used by the oppressors against us, all over the earth. We can’t be fooled by the illusion that the Cdn. government, & the RCMP, & the Corrections Service of Canada all act independently toward the resistance movement in Canada. In today’s world, where U.S. imperialism dominates all aspects of the industrial world, governments work together to destroy resistance movements by sharing police technology, methods of repression, & sponsor conferences to determine counter-insurgency policies.

In 1978, a secret international counter-insurgency conference was held in Puerto Rico where plans were clearly outlined, aimed at destroying the identity of political prisoners & their communication with the community. Basically, the idea was to develop practices that would separate political prisoners physically from one another, as well as isolate them from their community, breaking down their strength & influence. When they separate political prisoners from one another, they prevent the emotional & political support that politically-identified prisoners provide for each other & try to break down the identity & will of the person to make them conform to society’s values & institutions.

The State also tries to isolate political prisoners from the community. The State wants to deprive the prisoners & the community of the spiritual, mental & emotional nourishment that contact with one another provides. This contact with the community is a necessary safeguard for us against the kind of isolation where the administration feels free to do whatever it wants to the prisoner without accountability. If there is no contact, the community would not know if a prisoner is thrown into segregation, transferred to another part of the country, harassed by guards etc. The lines of communication with the outside are life-lines for prisoners.

In Europe, the French political prisoners went on a collective hunger-strike in Sept. 84 to have their political identity recognized, the right to have open visits with friends & relatives, an end to the separation of revolutionary prisoners by sex or group, the right of political prisoners to conduct meetings & jointly prepare for trials. As well, the German political prisoners went on collective hunger-strike Dec. 4/84 to demand the regroupement of political prisoners. In the U.S., political prisoners from the Puerto Rican independence movement & the American Indian Movement are systematically shipped to prisons far away from their relations & friends, & are separated from each other into maximum-security penitentiaries all across the country.

Canada has not been immune to using these isolation tactics. By 1983, the Native Brotherhood at Kent Prison, B.C. had developed a spiritually strong group that was trying to get the administration to allow them to practise the traditional spiritual ways of the sweat lodge & pipe ceremonies. The C.S.C. felt threatened & decided to dismantle the Brotherhood, transferring the members to all different regions in Canada.

Brent, Gerry, Julie, Doug & myself were all dispersed to prisons in separate regions of Canada to split us up individually & to separate us from our support base of friends & family. Julie and I are in the same prison solely because it is the only federal women’s prison. Doug was isolated culturally, socially & politically in the worst prison in Canada because the C.S.C. could only physically hold him for 4 years until his mandatory release date so they figured they could make up for the lack of sentence time by trying to break him spiritually & mentally. Certainly, Archambault was not a “mistake” in transfer.

[Luckily, thanks to the solid support of his friends and family and Doug’s determination to survive, he won an unprecedented victory after a 26 day hungerstrike — a transfer back to Kent, BC. – Ann Hansen, Global Resistance, Bulldozer, No. 08, Summer 1985]

At P4W, where I am locked down, a small group of women are subject to “security visits” which translates into severe limitations upon our visits. A screened visiting room will be built for us within the next few months & we can only have immediate family in for socials unlike the rest of the prison population at P4W & across Canada. These are practises which never existed before in the 50 year history of P4W.

No matter how hard they try, they can’t isolate us with their bars & cement walls from the broader liberation struggle because our wills & spirits soar with every victory in El Salvador, and live in the wilderness with the wind, trees, & wild creatures feeling the power of the Earth that can never be destroyed. As long as we survive, we must continue. to struggle because that is our only hope. We can learn a lot from the dandelions that flourish in the cracks of the cement,

Ann Hansen

Julie Rats Out – Resistance (1986)

Published in Resistance, No. 10, 1986, which was published as an insert in Open Road, No. 18, Spring 1986

On September 23, 1985 the B.C. Court of Appeal heard Julie Belmas, former member of the Canadian clandestine organizations Direct Action and the Wimmin’s Fire Brigade, appeal her 20 year sentence. During her testimony, she said she had renounced her activities, and described how she became involved with armed struggle and events leading up to and including the firebombing of Red Hot Video and Litton Systems of Canada. She named and described the activities of her former comrades Ann Hansen, Gerry Hannah, Brent Taylor and Doug Stewart, including activities for which some of these political prisoners have not been charged. The head of the three member panel, Judge Nemetz, ordered the transcripts of the appeal seized so that they could be used against Brent and Ann when they come up for appeal (before the same panel). The court’s decision on Julie’s appeal has yet to be handed down.

A classic example of the prison and justice system attacking the weakest link, breaking the will of Julie and reducing her to a pitiful, whining and sobbing spectre of her former self, Julie announced her ‘rehabilitation’ saying how she would like to [missing word(s) in the original article in Resistance] values and how she would like to teach criminology courses so that young people wouldn’t follow her wayward path. Blaming her youth and impressionable nature, (introducing a pamphlet on ‘Identity, Youth and Crisis’) she criticized Brent and Ann for misleading and misdirecting her, and completely accepted the prosecution’s portrayal of Ann and Brent as the leaders and herself as a lowly soldier. She spoke of pressure being applied to her due to her debts, and how she spoke tough on the phone only because she couldn’t bear Ann and Brent’s scorn. She asked the court to show her leniency because her guilty plea had started the whole ball rolling and how she had saved the justice system so much money by not proceeding with a trial by jury. All in all, a pathetic spectacle.

Julie’s turnaround did not surprize the Vancouver political community supportive of the Five. There had been enough signals indicating in which direction she intended to go, her rejection of the Free the Five Defense Group’s financial and political support (money sent for Julie’s appeal instead will be spent on Ann’s and Brent’s), her slide into religion at the Kingston Prison for Women where she and Ann were imprisoned and where Ann remains, her failure to answer correspondence, and her break-up with Direct Action member Gerry Hannah. And it was only the liberalism and naivete of the Vancouver revolutionary community that continued to accept Julie following her plea of guilty in June 1984 accompanied as it was by a signed confession implicating Brent in a number of activities. At that time, none of the other defendants had pleaded guilty, and while the Defense Group tells us that Brent was not overly disturbed by this betrayal (he being much more concerned with an upcoming court decision on the use of wiretaps) a betrayal it was, one which was not negated by Julie’s subsequent recanting on the pages of the Vancouver Sun, the major daily in the metropolitan area.

Whether it be an ‘upright citizen’ befriended by, and acting for the cops; a sleazy informer working for the police for money or to avoid charges; or a former member of the guerilla organization who has broken down under the stress of capture, confinement or torture, an informer is one of the guerilla’s worst fears. Look at the supergrasses of Northern Ireland and Italy and the destruction they have caused to the struggle there, or, closer to home, to the role of traitors in the trials of the Brinks defendants, the New York 8, and the Puerto Rican patriots in the U.S..

The use of informers as one of the most effective weapons in the counter-insurgency arsenal means that we, as revolutionaries, have to take special care with whom we work, discouraging those we feel haven’t reached the political and emotional maturity to engage in this line of activity, to look deep into ourselves to see if we, ourselves, are capable of withstanding the onslaught of the state and to take structural precautions to limit the amount of damage that can result from the turning of a comrade.

After all, to inform is to betray. To betray your comrades, to betray the revolution, to betray the people. If there is one transgression that cannot be countenanced it is that. On that score there is no forgiveness, no mitigating factors. It is the bottom line — one can’t get any lower.

So if Brent did stand up, as Julie testified in her appeal hearing, and said harshly to her that she “was out to sabotage everything he had dedicated his life towards” and that she “should be very careful” he was right.

For that is the destructive power of the informer and the proper attitude that we need to have towards them.

Vancouver 5 Released – Prison News Service / Bulldozer (1991)

Published in Prison News Service, No. 30, May/June 1991

by Bulldozer

Many of our readers with be familiar with the Vancouver Five from our coverage of their actions and trials in the early eighties in the old Bulldozer magazine. These activists were sentenced in 1984 on charges relating to the 1982 bombing by a group calling themselves Direct Action of a nearly completed electrical substation owned by B.C. Hydro; ten million dollar bombing of a Litton Industries factory outside of Toronto that manufactures the guidance system for the Cruise Missile (used so effectively in the massacre of Iraqi people); and the fire bombing of three outlets of a video chain specializing in violent pornography, carried out by an affiliated group, the Wimmin’s Fire Brigade.

The Five are now all out of prison.

Ann Hansen served more than 7 years of a life sentence. She was released just before Christmas to a half-way house in Kingston, Ont. where she works as a carpenter.

Brent Taylor did six years of a 22-year sentence. He has recently completed post- graduate work at Carlton University in Ottawa, finishing studies begun inside. He is also living in Kingston.

Gerry Hannah did 5 years on a ten-year bit. He is now a musician and construction worker in British Columbia.

Doug Stewart, having served the maximum 4 years on his six year sentence, is a carpenter in Vancouver.

The year-and-a-half spent in pre-trial detention, only counted for parole eligibility on Ann’s life sentence.

Julie Belmas broke with the others after their arrests in Jan/83. She testified at her appeal — though not at the trials — against Ann and Brent and had five years taken off her twenty-year sentence.

We honour these four people (and even the courage and rage shown by Julie’s original involvement). Their actions, subsequent police raids in Vancouver and Toronto on anarchist and peace activists, including Bulldozer, and the campaign around the trials, in spite of all the errors made by their supporters, contributed to the development of anti-authoritarian politics in Ontario. The issues they focused on: ecologically destructive development, high-tech weaponry designed to ensure American world domination, and violence against women, are more urgent than ever. The four have maintained their commitment to social justice, their sense of outrage, and will contribute much to the communities of which they are a part.

The Vancouver 5: Armed Struggle in Canada – Jim Campbell (2000)

An edited version of a talk given for the Anarchist Lecture Series in Toronto in Spring of 1999, originally published in Kick It Over, No. 37, Spring 2000, also published as a pamphlet by Kersplebedeb

by Jim Campbell

Linking anarchism to deliberate acts of violence might seen very natural to most people if they think about anarchism at all. But for most younger anarchists, it must be difficult to imagine that in the early ’80s armed struggle in Canada not only seemed possible, but a small group coming out of the anarchist community in Vancouver actually engaged in it. Moreover there was small but significant support for all three actions claimed by Direct Action and the Wimmen’s Fire Brigade.

Political struggle didn’t end in the early ’70s with the end of the Vietnam war. The anti-war, and other movements had pulled back, but miltants had gone underground to wage war against the system. Insurrection in Europe seemed possible as the Red Army Fraction and the Red Brigades assassinated and kidnapped politicians and corporate executives. In the U.S, the Black Liberation Army, formed when Black Panthers went underground, was active until 1981. The United Freedom Front (UFF) and the Armed Resistance Movement were active into the early ’80s, bombing government buildings to protest American military involvement in Central America and attacking corporate targets to protest their involvement in South Africa.

On the west coast, a multitude of small groups robbed banks, set off bombs and kidnapped Patty Hearst, a wealthy heiress. Some of these were explicitly anarchist or anti-authoritarians. Bill Dunne and Larry Giddings, for example, were anarchists who continue to be imprisoned in the U.S. today for trying to break a friend out of jail. The George Jackson Brigade was anti-authoritarian, pro-woman, pro-gay and lesbian and advocated collective as opposed to party politics. Even though all of these groups were eventually crushed, they did offer a political alternative to organizing demonstrations and putting out papers

The Canadian anarchist papers, Open Road in Vancouver, Bulldozer in Toronto, and Resistance, which started in Toronto and then shifted to Vancouver, covered the armed resistance in the U.S. and in Europe and the subsequent repression. We published communiques explaining actions, provided supportive coverage of trials and offered an outlet for the writings of the captured combatants and their supporters. Revolution, or at least a protracted struggle, seemed quite possible. Direct Action and the Wimmen’s Fire Brigade were part of this wave of armed struggle in North American, part of a broader anti-NATO, anti-war machine politic. The perspective was very much internationalist even if it was understood that it meant working within one’s own local and national situation.

In the spring of 1982 a bomb destroyed the nearly completed Cheekeye-Dunsmuir Hydro substation. It’s construction had been strongly opposed by local residents on environmental grounds. It was thought that it would lead to the industrialization of Vancouver island and the construction of nuclear power plants for export sales to the U.S. Several hundred pounds of dynamite stopped that plan in its tracks. There was a lot of local support for the action. It wasn’t clear whether or not Direct Action, which had claimed the action, was an anarchist group, in a sense it didn’t make any difference. The action had raised the political stakes in Canada. But as the bombing had taken place in the wilderness, it was easy to ignore. The next action wouldn’t be.

In the late evening of October 14, 1982, a truck exploded outside the Litton Industries plant in Rexdale, in the northwest corner of Toronto resulting in million of dollars in damages. Seven workers were injured, one permanently. After a few days, Direct Action issued a communique claiming responsibility. As a political piece, the communique is as relevant today as it was in 1982, the only change being that the cold war is over. In a second written statement, they took responsibility for a series of errors which resulted in the injuries, especially for seeing the cops and security guards as super heroes. They weren’t.

To ensure that the bomb would be taken seriously, they drove the van in front of a glass-enclosed security booth and parked in front of the factory. The guards didn’t notice the truck even though the van driver could clearly see them. Then the phoned-in warning was not understood. But at least it drew the attention of the guards to the van. Unfortunately Direct Action was a bit too clever. They had placed a box painted fluorescent orange outside the truck, easily visible from the security booth. On top of the box they placed a sheet of paper with information and instructions. They expected the guards to come over to the box once they received the phone warning. To emphasize the seriousness of the situation, they placed a stick of unarmed dynamite on top of the box. The guards avoided the box, given that they didn’t know that the dynamite on the box was unarmed. In spite of the obvious threat, they didn’t start to evacuate the plant until 20 minutes after receiving the warning. And then the bomb went off early, probably set off by radio signals from the arriving police cars.

The bombing took place at a time when the possibility of nuclear war was very real. Both sides were attempting to achieve first strike nuclear capability through new weapons such as the Cruise and Perishing Missiles, the Trident Submarines, and the Neutron Bomb. In response, a peace movement developed in Europe, North America and elsewhere. Canada’s agreement to let the U.S. test the Cruise over northern Alberta and the Northwest Territories was seen as a particular affront by peace activists. Litton had been the focus of extensive protests by peace groups since they were producing the guidance systems for the Cruise. But the protests were going nowhere.

The initial reaction of many radicals and activists was joyful on first seeing the headlines in the paper. But this changed on more sober reflection as the implications were thought through. The bombing wasn’t just a threat to the militarized state, but to the peaceful coexistence so many activists have with the system. It is clear that even with the injuries, there was not much reaction to it by the average person. For most people the bombing was only another spectacular event in a world gone mad.

[I]t certainly was a major event for the anarchists and the pacifists. The anarchist-communist paper, Strike!, which came out of Toronto, initially condemned the action because it would discredit the movement. It repeated the usual critique that such actions could not by themselves do anything. Direct Action never claimed that it would. To quote the communique, “(w)hile we have no illusions that direct actions, such as this one, can by themselves bring about the end of Canada’s role as a resource based economic and military functionary of Western Imperialism, we do believe that militant direct actions can have a constructive function as a springboard to the kind of consciousness and organization that must be developed if we are to overcome the nuclear masters.”

A more sophisticated critique was issued anonymously by anarchists around Kick It Over. They complained that “the bombing at Litton can not be said to have increased the self-activity of either the community or the employees at the plant”. Fair enough, though the same point can be said about putting out newspapers and most other things we do. These anarchists didn’t condemn Direct Action for being violent, rather they put the violence in the context of state violence. Though wrongly labeling the bombing as “Vanguard Terror”, it was valid to say that “clandestine organizations tend to become isolated from the people” and see their continued existence as becoming a goal in itself. Again this problem is not unique to underground groups.

In early November, less than a month after the bombing, the Toronto Globe and Mail ran a major front page article linking the Litton bombing to the Vancouver anarchist community. It quoted unnamed anarchists who drew out the similarities between the politics of Direct Action and the Vancouver anarchist scene. In a later, more sympathetic article, other anarchists provided some background information as to what the purpose of the bombing might be without explicitly claiming that it was an anarchist action. This article was condemned by many anarchists in Toronto but it did help to get the ideas to a wider public.

In mid December, the offices of the main peace groups in Toronto were raided along with the homes of some of their prominent members. Activists in Toronto and Peterborough were picked up and harassed and threatened by the police. It has never been clear to what extent the police actually thought that these pacifists were really suspects or whether the raids were simply used to disrupt their work against Litton. Some pacifists tried to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the bombers. But there was enough support from other pacifists to show that there need not be a total split between militants, whatever their position might be on the use of violence. The largest demonstration ever to occur against Litton happened on November 11, 1982 less than a month after the bombing. As we said at the time, armed actions can make other forms of protest more visible, rather than less credible.

Litton lost a major contract shortly after the bombing. As Litton President Ronald Keating put it, “(t)hey (the protesters) are an irritant, they get a lot of publicity, and the Americans read every damn bit of it. Pressure from these people is making the Americans look twice. ” He added rather sadly that, “no one else has been bombed.”

In early November, in Vancouver, the Wimmen’s Fire Brigade firebombed three Red Hot Video stores. This American chain built up an inventory of video tapes pirated from hard-core porn films. According to Open Road, “(m)any of the films depicted not only explicit sex scenes, but women being trussed up, beaten, raped, tortured, forced to undergo enemas by armed intruders and other forms of degradation.” Women’s groups had been fighting for six months against Red Hot Video, but there was no response from the province. Within a few weeks, scores of women’s groups of all stripes had issued statements of sympathy and understanding for the action, demonstrations had been held in a dozen centres across the province, and six porn shops had closed, moved away or withdrawn much of their stock out of fear they would be the next target. Within two months the first charges were laid for combining explicit sex with violence.

The Wimmen’s Fire Brigade action was so successful because it was so well integrated into, and complimentary to the public campaign. As B.C. Blackout, a biweekly autonomist newsletter put it, “the action of the WFB could only have the impact it did because of the months of spade work by many groups and individuals educating themselves, doing research, making contacts, pressuring the authorities, documenting their case — in short, building the infrastructure for an effective, grass roots, above-board movement.”

On January 20, 1983, near Squamish, B.C. the Five were returning to Vancouver from target practice in the mountains. The police, dressed as Department of Highway workers, stopped their van and in a violent attack pulled them out of the van and arrested them at gun point. They were charged with 12 to 15 counts, including Red Hot Video, Cheekeye-Dunsmuir, conspiracy to rob a Brink’s truck, as well as conspiracy to commit more bombings. Immediately after the arrests, the police had a news conference at which displayed the extensive weaponry which they claimed had been seized from the Five. This was the beginning of what came to be called, “Trial by Media” as the police and prosecution used the media to try to contaminate public opinion not only against the Five, but against the anarchist movement in general. Newspaper headlines screamed about “police netting terrorists” and “national network of anarchist cells.” The police raided 4 homes in Vancouver the morning after the first support group meeting. No arrests were made, but typewriters were seized and people were subjected to verbal abuse.

The official police story was that the break in the case came when a reporter from the Globe and Mail showed anarchist papers to the Toronto police who, noticing the Cheekeye-Dunsmuir communique in Resistance, sent the Post Office Box address to Vancouver. The cops there supposedly put the box under surveillance and were eventually able to track down the Five through a series of contacts. The story was convincing enough that the reporter was going to apply for the substantial reward before being talked out of it by more conscious and principled friends.

What this story was a cover for was that the police were already very aware of the Five. They had been under police surveillance for one reason or another since well before the first action. Brent Taylor and Ann Hansen in particular were pretty notorious in Vancouver. A cop didn’t have to be too bright to consider them as possible suspects. Activists who didn’t even know them thought they probably had something to do with Direct Action. They were the only ones who regularly went to demonstrations all masked up, looking much more prepared for demonstrations in Germany than in Vancouver.

It is quite likely that the security police had actually watched them do the Red Hot Video actions. This became very relevant at the trials. The Vancouver police obtained warrants to tap their phones and bug their house in order to investigate Red Hot Video. Such warrants are only supposed to be issued as a last resort when all other means of investigation have failed. But these were issued shortly after the firebombing happened. Moreover, they were not needed if the police already knew who had participated in the attacks. The RCMP security service had watched them commit other crimes and had them under observation at the time of Red Hot Video. But there were no surveillance notes covering the period of the actual attack. It was assumed that the wire taps were actually needed by the police to connect the Five to Litton, for which it would have been more difficult for the Vancouver police to obtain a legal warrant. The evidence obtained through these bugs provided the bulk of the case against the Five which is why the first part of the eventual trial dealt with their legality.

On June 13, 1983, the Bulldozer house in Toronto was raided by the local Litton squad. The warrant, which included the charges of Sabotage of Litton, Seditious Libel, and Procuring an abortion allowed the police to specifically seize anything related to Bulldozer magazine. They took layout flats, letters, articles, magazines, and the mailing list. We finally got all this stuff back after a year of legal fighting.

The seditious libel charge was apparently related to a leaflet entitled “Peace, Paranoia and Politics” which laid out the politics around the Litton bombing, the peace movement and the arrests of the Five. Seditious Libel apparently involves calling for the armed overthrow of the state. The last time the charge had been used was in 1950 against some trade unionists in Quebec. Our lawyers eagerly anticipated defending us on this charge, but nothing ever came of it.

The Procuring an Abortion charge came about when an alleged menstrual extraction performed by a midwife, Colleen Crosby, on a member of the Bulldozer collective, had come to the attention of the police through phone taps. Crosby was picked up a week later by cops who drove her around for several hours, threatening to charge her with the procuring an abortion charge unless she told them about any links between Bulldozer and the Litton bombing. Crosby was would have refused to cooperate anyway, but she had no information to give. It took a couple of years and thousands of dollars in legal fees before the charge was eventually dropped.

Our political weakness — referring to both the Five and their supporters — became apparent during the trial and the support work we did around the trial. The Five assumed that they would go down in a hail of bullets. Instead of the relative glory of the spectacular death, they had to deal with the much more pedestrian reality of sitting in jail awaiting trial. This lack of political and personal preparation for the almost inevitable consequences of their actions was compounded by a lack of preparation by their supporters. It is straightforward to reprint communiques from underground comrades. But it is much more difficult to handle raids and lawyers, harassing arrests, and watch friends and comrades distance themselves just when support and work is needed the most. One must be able to handle high-stress politics for what could be a period of years, while advancing politics that may not even be supported by one’s own friends and political associates, let alone the wider society. Yet competent and principled above ground support is crucial if underground actions are to have any long term impact. The community in Vancouver was able to maintain a presence outside and inside the courtroom during the trial in spite of differences in strategy as to how to support them. In Toronto, we were able to keep the ideas in circulation, but had little public impact.

In the initial confusion, the right to a fair trial became the main demand. Since it seemed possible that the room bugs which provided the main body of evidence might be thrown out, this strictly legal course was hard to resist without prior political clarity as to how trials should be conducted. The right to a fair trial must not be ignored if the battle is going to be fought on the legal terrain at all. But it is the state’s battleground, and their first weapon is criminalization. The Crown split the indictments into four trials, the first of which was on the least overtly political charges, weapons offenses and conspiracy to rob a Brink’s truck. While it may be obvious to those who have a certain political understanding why guerrillas need weapons and money, television pictures of a desktop full of weapons, and reports of meticulous planning for a raid on a Brink’s truck, were calculated to defuse claims that the Five were principled political activists. The fight for a fair trial did draw support from activists, progressive journalists and lawyers and human rights activists. But it can create real problems if the trial is made to appear legally “fair”. Or when, as happened, the Five eventually pled guilty. Some people who did support work felt manipulated into supporting guilty people even though we tried to be clear that there is a difference between pleading not guilty and being innocent.

The Trial by Media strategy fell apart when the court ruled that the wire tap evidence was admissible. The first trial for the weapons and conspiracy to rob the Brink’s truck began in January 1984. The evidence of the first 4 months mainly involved the surveillance prior to their arrests. In March, Julie Belmas and Gerry Hannah entered guilty pleas, including Red Hot Video, and for Julie, the Litton bombing. In April, Doug Stewart was ordered acquitted on the Brink’s charge but found guilty of weapon offenses. In June, he pled guilty to Cheekeye-Dunsmuir. The jury found Ann and Brent guilty of all the charges from the first trial. In June, in a surprise move, Ann pled guilty to Cheekeye-Dunsmuir and Litton.

Brent was brought to Toronto for a trial around Litton and eventually pled guilty. Recognizing our own weakness, we told him that little could be gained politically in Toronto if the trial was to go ahead. In our relative isolation it was difficult to imagine taking on what would have to be a major effort to present the politics behind the bombing through a hostile mass media. Yet not doing so meant that there was never a longer-term focus nor sense of direction for those who might have been willing to come forward with more active support. It was not our most glorious moment.

To sum up this section, let me quote from Ann’s sentencing statement, “(w)hen I was first arrested, I was intimidated and surrounded by the courts and prisons. This fear provided the basis for the belief that if I played the legal game, I would get acquitted or less time. This fear obscured my vision and fooled me into thinking that I could get a break from the justice system. But this eight months in court has sharpened my perceptions and strengthened my political convictions to see that the legal game is marked and political prisoners are dealt a marked deck.”

Doug Stewart was sentenced to 6 years, and served the maximum 4. Gerry Hannah got ten years, but was out in 5. Julie, only 21 at the time of sentencing, got 20 years. She appealed and got five years off when she turned against Ann and Brent, effectively sabotaging their appeal. Many people were really pissed at this betrayal by Julie. But Julie’s testimony was not the reason why Ann and Brent were convicted. If Julie really wanted to make a deal, she could have implicated other people by lying. This she didn’t do.

Brent got 22 years, and Ann got life. The sentences, especially Julie’s and Ann’s were considered unduly harsh. But the state wanted to stamp out any incipient guerrilla activity. The prison system, though, controls how long people actually served. Ann and Brent were both out before 8 years were up. In comparison to what happens to American guerrillas, this was almost lenient.

Doug Stewart wrote in Open Road after their conviction that the size of the bombs was problematic. He suggested that medium-level attacks such as arson and mechanical sabotage are easier to do than bombings and large scale actions virtually demand going underground. Direct Action understood that they had to break off contact with other political people; that to do actions in one city, they should live in another. But this demands enormous emotional and personal sacrifices. It was the failure to completely cut off ties with friends and lovers that left a trail for the local police. Smaller actions are technically simpler and allow, as Stewart says, “a group to come together easily and quickly around a particular issue.” Medium-level activity also “has a much less intense impact on one’s personal life. If you are not underground, you are less emotionally isolated, and the overall stress level is very much lower. Capture for a medium-level action would be much less devastating in every way. A two or three year sentence is no joke, but it is substantially easier to deal with than a ten or twenty year one.”

To summarize, let me quote from an article in Prison News Service written ten years after Litton:

“Overt political actions such as these bombings, propaganda by deed, as they are known, are not understood in a non-political society. Even though few people will understand the motivations behind the attack, the positive side is that there won’t necessarily be a major reaction against it either. It is an error to think that something like the Litton bombing will be a wake-up call for people to do something about a critical situation facing them. But properly explained it can make a difference to those people who are already concerned about the situation and who have become frustrated with other methods of dealing with the issue.

“Guerrilla actions are not an end in themselves; that is, a single act, or even a coordinated series of actions, has little likelihood of achieving little more than some immediate goal. Such actions are problematic if it is assumed that they can be substituted for above ground work. But if they can be situated within a broader politics, one tactic amongst many, then they can give the above ground movements more room to maneuver, making them both more visible and more credible. At the same time, activists are given a psychological lift, a sense of victory, regardless of how fleeting, so that they go about their own political work with a renewed enthusiasm…

“For most North American activists, armed struggle is reduced to a moral question: ‘Should we, or should we not use violent means to advance the struggle?’ Though this is relevant on a personal level, it only confuses what is really a political question. Most radicals, at this point in time anyway, are not going to become involved directly in armed attacks. But as resistance movements develop in North America – and they had better or we are all lost – it is inevitable that armed actions will be undertaken by some. The question remains if these armed actions will be accepted as part of the spectrum of necessary activity. Much will depend on whether people suffer harm or injuries. Far from being “terroristic”, the history of armed struggle in North America shows that the guerrillas have been quite careful in selecting their targets. There is a major difference between bombing military or corporate targets, or even assassinating police in response to their use of violence, and setting off bombs on crowded city streets. The left in North America has never used random acts of terror against the general population. To denounce any who would choose to act outside of the narrowly defined limits of ‘peaceful protest’ in order to appear morally superior, or to supposedly avoid alienating people, is to give the state the right to determine what are the allowable limits of protest.”

Repression is most effective when it is able to keep the radical ideas from being transmitted to a new generation of activists. If the ideas can be passed on, then the next wave of activists develop their politics from the base that has already been created. Fortunately, a relatively small, but very active milieu of young activists adopted many of the politics around Direct Action and developed them through such projects as Reality Now, the Anarchist Black Cross and Ecomedia. Their work in the peace, punk and native support movements, helped ensure that such politics did not end when the Five went to prison.

Back to Table of Contents