American Olympic critic denied entry to Canada: Protest questions begin

Image via Wikipedia

There will be protests. That much, at least, is for sure. When the Winter Olympics begin this Friday in Vancouver, they will be unwelcomed by a visible and vocal percentage of the population who have been waiting for this opportunity as much as any of the athletes. And like those in other western democracies who’ve witnessed the disruption of a high-profile event, Canadian authorities are already attempting to control the situation. But how exactly can they do that? And should they?

The buildup to the Vancouver Games has been as much about the protests as it has almost anything else. With every positive story about the Games, there was a negative one that followed, and as the cost of the Olympics has begun to take shape (both monetarily and socially), the opposition has gained momentum. Much of it has grown online, and because of that, the anti-Olympic movement long ago ceased to be simply a Vancouver-based issue.

This past weekend, Martin Macias Jr., a known Olympic critic from Chicago, was denied entry to Canada when he arrived at the Vancouver international airport. He was held for two hours and questioned about his reasons for visiting the city. When he failed to answer to the satisfaction of officials, he was forced to leave. (His friend, Bob Quellos, another Olympic naysayer was allowed entry.)

From CTV:

“They wanted to know more about the people who are organizing the conference, about who I was staying with, if I could contact them, if I knew what they were wearing,” Macias said. “It was very, very strange.”

Macias said his phone book was confiscated and inspected. One local Vancouver number, listed under “Support,” was of particular interest.

“It is a number to the conference in case you’re in the city, you need food, or you get questioned by police,” Macias said. “They took that as a sign that I was coming here with the intention of getting into some kind of violent rally or protest.”

It’s the endless question for any country hosting an international event: what role can foreign citizens be allowed to play in protesting a global meeting? It was an issue in London at last year’s G20 summit, and again in December at the climate conference in Copenhagen. There are obviously valid security concerns regarding individuals entering a country with the intent to cause a disruption, but that disruption is difficult to avoid. If it’s not a Mr. Macias causing it, then it’ll be someone else, and technically, their voice is as valid as the next.

Mr. Macias was accused of withholding information, which may or may not have been the case – we don’t know. And obviously this situation has been used to his advantage, as the message he wanted to promote has still been heard, most likely much louder than if he’d never been stopped. Despite that, it does highlight an issue with the upcoming protests: that attempting to pre-emptively silence them will only add fuel to the fire.

That’s not to say that the authorities should stand down, because there’s a difference between voicing an opposing opinion and having that opinion manifest itself in a violent act. And that’s what we have laws for. Laws also allow for free speech, and though that makes us vulnerable, we have to allow it in all forms no matter who is saying it, until it becomes unlawful under the conditions of our system.

The organizers for the Olympic protests have promised that they will be peaceful. Let the protesters speak, and then let us decide whether that speech is valid.