OTTAWA—There has been an uptick in online calls for vigilante action against Wet’suwet’en solidarity protests among hate groups and far-right activists, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network says.

Evan Balgord, a researcher with the network, says the protests in support of Wet’suwet’en heredity chiefs are the “number one” topic of conversation among hate groups and far-right fringe groups online, with many calling for violence to remove the protesters.

It is difficult to quantify the reach of those messages, and impossible to say if they will translate into anything more than talk. But Balgord said the groups were inspired by counterprotesters who removed a barricade in Edmonton Wednesday.

“There’s a lot of celebration of those couple of guys who dismantled that barricade of sorts in Edmonton … and calls for people to do similar things,” Balgord said in an interview Thursday.

“But not just to tear down those blockades … but a lot of the calls are specifically like, ‘if they are blocking streets, we should run over them.’”

Law enforcement agencies have resisted intervening in the protests as the federal government seeks a “peaceful” resolution. The protests — now in their second week and happening across the country — are in support of Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs who oppose the Coastal GasLink liquid natural gas pipeline in northern British Columbia.

While the pipeline has the support of elected band councils along its route, the opposition by the hereditary chiefs has sparked a widespread protest movement that has disrupted much of Canada’s rail transport. The Liberal government is under considerable pressure — both from the opposition Conservatives and from business groups — to find a way to lift the blockades.

But the possibility of clashes between pipeline protesters and counterprotesters makes a complicated situation more difficult for law enforcement.

“The primary objective of the police in all these instances is public safety, whether it be demonstrators, police officers themselves, or now vigilantes. It’s a difficult, difficult, complex environment in which to operate and not be judged as biased or partial to a particular outcome,” former RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson told the Star in an interview.

Paulson said the RCMP’s intelligence branch would be assessing anyone on either side — protester or counterprotester — who is advocating violence.

“(And) if they had information that counterprotesters were there, I think it’d be diligent to be nearby. Because there’s going to be trouble,” Paulson said.

The Star asked Public Safety Minister Bill Blair’s office if they were concerned about the counterprotests escalating an already tense situation, whether the minister had discussed the matter with the RCMP, and if the government is doing anything to monitor the situation on a national level.

The minister’s office did not address those questions.

“As we’ve maintained throughout this difficult time, we will always advocate for the adherence to the rule of law and peaceful resolution to these disputes,” wrote spokesperson Mary-Liz Power.

“The police are following their training, their procedures, and they are working diligently to resolve this matter peacefully.”

In a statement, the RCMP said that any “unlawful” interference would be investigated.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“The role of the RCMP when unlawful acts occur is to optimize public safety, preserve the peace and enforce the law, while upholding the fundamental freedom of peaceful demonstration and expression of ideas,” said a spokesperson for the force in a statement to the Star.

“Those who unlawfully interfere with, or threaten the safety of any person or property, will be investigated in accordance with the law.”

Steve Summerville, a former Toronto Police Service staff sergeant who runs a security consulting firm, said law enforcement agencies policing the blockades must have a plan in place in case counterprotesters escalate a situation. But he said the dynamic is not unusual to police, who would likely be reluctant to intervene unless there was a clear risk to public safety.

“The Charter of Rights very clearly lays out what you’re able to do, unless your actions create a significant risk to the others,” Summerville said in an interview.

“And I’m not talking about having your feelings hurt, or having you be called names. I’m talking about something just short of somebody getting hurt or worse.”

Read more about: