Weds 1st April: G20 protests - discussion, reaction and chat

[editor]

A few headlines that nobody will remember in a few months time? Do me a favour.

I'll remember it and certainly won't forget what I saw. Like I said, I'm glad I went.

If somebody attacks you, do you curl up in a ball and wait for them to stop kicking? Or do you fight back?

I'd photograph and document the incident and make sure that it gets propagated far and wide, kicking up as much fuss as I can in the process. What would you do? Could you give some examples of your responses from previous actions?

 

[Garcia Lorca]

I think inbloom has a fair point that ive seen work first hand. Yes fighting back can restrict arrests and indeed force police lines back somewhat. Making the police less confident in moving foward to grab people from the crowd.

What I wouldnt agree with is that this demo was a waste of time, indeed it has now brought the over all methods of policing demonstrations into the national media and under serious scrutiny. I am hoping that now officers will be identifiable at demonstrations, that there will be no further robocop attitudes with their numbers hidden giving them the freedom to do as they please with the superior above the law methods of policing. This may not completely happen, but i think many police will now think twice about taking this stance.

It has also made many people realise that its not just anarchists, hippies and the unwashed that attend these protests.. i believe it has opened some peoples eyes to the bigger picture.

It didnt bring the banks down, smash the system and make change at a political level that we would like.. .but its certainly brought a lot of questions to the surface that aint going to go away and are going to need answers.

For that.. I feel it was more than worthwhile.

edit to add.. that was a very short reply in summary and should have gone into more detail! if it wasnt for work.

 

[_pH_]

I think inbloom has a fair point that ive seen work first hand. Yes fighting back can restrict arrests and indeed force police lines somewhat. Making the police less confident in moving foward to grab people from the crowd.

what does that achieve in the long term though?

 

[Fruitloop]

Agreed. Police violence hasn't been under this much scrutiny for quite a while. Now that the establishment fightback has started in the media, it will be interesting to see where it all ends.

 

[Barking_Mad]

I'll remember it and certainly won't forget what I saw. Like I said, I'm glad I went.
I'd photograph and document the incident and make sure that it gets propagated far and wide, kicking up as much fuss as I can in the process. What would you do? Could you give some examples of your responses from previous actions?

Which is a dodgy moral dilemma in itself....

 

[Garcia Lorca]

what does that achieve in the long term though?

I think that it maybe counter productive in the long term, depening on the use of force that a crowd would use against the police. The peaceful nature of the G20 protests was its strength, especially since the whirlwind it took within the media and it helped with the points I made above regarding other people taking notice that it wasnt just anarchist, hippies and unwashed (as quoted on the police forums!).

I was simply making the point that at times this has been effective in reducing arrests and forcing police lines back. I wasnt necessarly saying it should be the way foward.

I would like to think that I could stand there with my hands in the air shouting "this is not a riot" as a police line came foward to truncheon a crowd out the way.. I do not know if I have that much pascifism inside me tho.

 

[Corax]

IMO you can remain 'peaceful' whilst resisting violence, if necessary with the use of force - which you've now clarified as what you're talking about IB. Not how your first post came across.

 

[Barking_Mad]

I think that it maybe counter productive in the long term, depening on the use of force that a crowd would use against the police. The peaceful nature of the G20 protests was its strength, especially since the whirlwind it took within the media and it helped with the points I made above regarding other people taking notice that it wasnt just anarchist, hippies and unwashed (as quoted on the police forums!).

I was simply making the point that at times this has been effective in reducing arrests and forcing police lines back. I wasnt necessarly saying it should be the way foward.

I would like to think that I could stand there with my hands in the air shouting "this is not a riot" as a police line came foward to truncheon a crowd out the way.. I do not know if I have that much pascifism inside me tho.

The lack of overall violence meant that for once police violence made the headlines. It's not pretty for those smashed by the police, but had there been a ruck then the police tactics would have been lost amongst a votriolic media. As it was, even the right-wing papers (The Sun excepted) criticised the coppers. And that is unusual to say the least.

That's not to say protesters should be that naive again - had the woman with the mic listened to the anarchists warning them they were about to be 'kettled', it might not have happened quite as it did......

 

[Fruitloop]

The climate camp clearance was non-violence at its most media-effective, I thought. Requires balls, co-ordination and discipline.

De-arresting as a tactic has its place, but the police didn't seem that interested in making arrests at the time, it was more about taking people down, putting the boot in and more often than not letting them stagger off. So a de-arrest would put more people in harms way and possibly expose them much more to actual criminal charges than the person who is being not-quite-arrested.

Two areas that could be looked at are countering snatch-squads, and preventing the filtering of people as they are gradually let out of the kettle - a point at which the police obviously feel most confident in making arrests as most people are tired and just want to get the hell out.

The video/camera phone recording was the big success though - that needs to be protected and if possible extended.

 

[In Bloom]

what does that achieve in the long term though?

It achieves not getting hurt, not being arrested. Police kettle people and use disproportionate violence for a reason, it scares people off, makes them feel small. By resisting, you can defend against that, which can be helpful to a movement in the long term.

 

[Crispy]

I think in the long term, fighting the police only encourages them to be rough.

The main point, though, is this: If the purpose of protest is to communicate a message, then you absolutely have to consider the media. If there's any violence (and you can very loosely define that) from the protestors, then the media will write the standard story. It's an easy spin. But there's no way to spin a police striking a completely passive person. It's a harder thing to do, I think, but it works so much better as a protest tactic.

 

[_pH_]

Good words Crispeh

 

[shaman75]

It achieves not getting hurt, not being arrested. Police kettle people and use disproportionate violence for a reason, it scares people off, makes them feel small. By resisting, you can defend against that, which can be helpful to a movement in the long term.

Wouldn't this just encourage them to continue kettling and photo the 'suspects' for future pick-up?

 

[Fruitloop]

Fight the police on a demo like that and you will get water-cannons, baton rounds etc, and the mainstream press won't put any pressure on them over it.

I don't reckon mixing tactics like that would work - you need to do one or the other.

 

[In Bloom]

I'll remember it and certainly won't forget what I saw. Like I said, I'm glad I went.

That's all very well for you, but I don't see providing an experience we can tell our grandkids about as an end in itself for political action.

I'd photograph and document the incident and make sure that it gets propagated far and wide, kicking up as much fuss as I can in the process. What would you do? Could you give some examples of your responses from previous actions?

Take the 2006 Labour Party conference demo, the police tried to arrest people in the anarchist block, we wouldn't let them, none of us were arrested.

What we actually did was swarm the cops as they tried to snatch people, pushing and pulling, shouting at them, then we tried to get everybody to tighten up and not allow the cops into the block. Very effective, IME, though I was annoyed that it'd been made necessary by a few idiots with masks in the first place.

There's a place for photographs, recording the incident, being media friendly, but there needs to be a balance between that and self-defence.

 

[In Bloom]

Wouldn't this just encourage them to continue kettling and photo the 'suspects' for future pick-up?

Kettling can be avoided if you maintain an awareness of what the police are doing, a kettle can also be broken if you have enough people willing to push through the line.

Fight the police on a demo like that and you will get water-cannons, baton rounds etc, and the mainstream press won't put any pressure on them over it.

Being peaceful didn't exactly seem to stop the police beating the shite out of people on the 1st of April. If the police want to use water-cannons against peaceful protesters, they will.

People will support violence when it's in the name of a cause they support, just as they support police violence when that violence is done as a means to an end they support.

 

[Fruitloop]

The police are taking an unprecedented amount of flak at the moment though, is that not an achievement at all?

In terms of kettling, I reckon it's a case of wait and see, looks like the tactic could be under review in any case. Of course, there'll be a replacement and we'll have to adapt.

 

[In Bloom]

The police are taking an unprecedented amount of flak at the moment though, is that not an achievement at all?

Not really, they'll sack/prosecute the cops who've actually been caught using disproportionate force, conclude that it was a few bad apples and then it'll be back to business as usual. The media has a short memory.

 

[winjer]

People said at the time that it was strange that the RBS building hadn't been boarded up and that no police were there to protect it.

People that also think there were police photographers behind the windows when they were smashed, that the people throwing computer monitors hadn't been on the marches from the start points, and that every other potential target was boarded up, which are all photographically, provably bollocks.

 

[shaman75]

Kettling can be avoided if you maintain an awareness of what the police are doing, a kettle can also be broken if you have enough people willing to push through the line.

But I didn't ask about avoiding/ breaking kettles

 

[In Bloom]

But I didn't ask about avoiding/ breaking kettles

But you did bring kettling up, I was just pointing out that kettling is not insurmountable, if you're willing to accept that a certain level of force may be necessary.

 

[Corax]

The police are taking an unprecedented amount of flak at the moment though, is that not an achievement at all?

Not until it has an effect on the filth's mentality. At the moment they're just feeling very hard-done-by, blaming the media misrepresentation of events, intimating that they will rebel against any senior figure that lays any blame on them, and there appears to be a large number who feel that the best response would be to introduce CS & w-cannon.

 

[DaveCinzano]

But there's no way to spin a police striking a completely passive person.

Of course there is. It has happened again and again in the past and will happen again and again in the future. One only has to consider the comments made by many regarding the Climate Camp videos - "those protesters are clearly not non-violent" and so forth - on YouTube, policing bulletin boards and elsewhere to see how 'police striking a completely passive person' can be spun.

Consider also incidents like the Diaz raid during Genoa.

One does not have to 'condone violence' to be emphatically supportive of self-defence.

One might also quite reasonably put forward the argument that when passivity and 'non-violence' (in the sense of the news bulletin-friendly, visual tactic) are the dominant forms of behaviour at political assemblies, then they help contribute to the mentality that many police officers have that there is no comeback to doling out beatings.

Not being passive does not have to mean being violently agressive, or aggressively violent. It can simply mean acting assertively and collectively.

Besides, Crispy, are you volunteering to be on the frontline, to be one of the willing victims? Are you offering up your skull, your bones, your cock-and-balls as a punchbag for a pumped-up, testosterone-fuelled, armoured-and-armed, paramilitarised police officer high on adrenaline and the rush of action-without-consequences?

 

[Groucho]

As regards responding to police violence on demonstrations with passivity, peaceful resistance or an organised response of resistance, I personally think these questions are tactical considerations and not issues of principle.

Passivity combined with detailed recording of the events by legal observers and plenty of filmed evidence was certainly a successful tactic as deployed by the Climate Camp. Of course this success came at a price - many peaceful demonstrators were terrorised, bruised, battered and someone could have been killed there. For Ian Tomlinson at the RBS he was assaulted and subesquently died just because he was there. So non-violence has not deterred the police from violent attacks on demonstrators. It has however, assisted in winning the war for hearts and minds.

However, on other occassions there are other tactical considerations. The Tamil protest yesterday was non-violent but did manage to forecably push through police lines to occupy the streets and in sufficient numbers to ensure they could not be moved without the deployment of violence on the part of the police (something the police for obvious reasons were unprepared to do at present).

At some point I suspect that progressive change will be resisted by armed force on the part of the state - not just battons but whatever is deemed necessary to quash a movement. If the rich and their state felt that their very rule was threatened there are no real limits to the violence they will contemplate. At that point public opinion and strength of numbers may be on our side but the state may still resort (would be likely to resort) to significant violence. In which case mere passive resistance will not be enough.

In the meantime, too much concentration on street fighting tactics in response to police violence can be counter-productive. It could deter the majority of the public who are not up for violent confrontation from joining protest movements (this is one of the reasons the state provokes violence). A violent response from the protesters (and I have always defended those who are moved to fight back against police aggression) can provide amunition for the distorted press coverage we are used to and make it easier for the police to increase their violence.

Instead we are now - right now - at a point where it is becoming harder for the police to violently assault peaceful protests. We should seize the time to push our advantage. Continue to video record every protest, insist on our right to march. Resist attempts to kettle where possible through passive resistance. More and more people are showing a willingness to get involved in pressing for change in response to the environmental challenge we face and the economic crisis capitalism faces.

 

[DaveCinzano]

People that also think [1] there were police photographers behind the windows when they were smashed, [2] that the people throwing computer monitors hadn't been on the marches from the start points, and [3] that every other potential target was boarded up, which are all photographically, provably bollocks.

That's quite interesting, points [1] and [3] seemed to surface quite quickly during/after the events unfolded. I think I shall have a look back and try and find the earliest mentions of those things. I hadn't heard [2], but then it sounds like a familiar default excuse.

 

[shaman75]

But you did bring kettling up

You brought it up. I just asked a question about preventing the police making arrests and it's influence on the likelihood of kettling.

Never mind.

 

[Fruitloop]

Not until it has an effect on the filth's mentality. At the moment they're just feeling very hard-done-by, blaming the media misrepresentation of events, intimating that they will rebel against any senior figure that lays any blame on them, and there appears to be a large number who feel that the best response would be to introduce CS & w-cannon.

Yeah, although it's about 60/30 against them in terms of public opinion at the moment, I hardly think they're gonna get support for an escalation of violence, the issue of the right to protest is in the public eye (for the moment....) and misrepresentation is hard to support when the evidence is all over youtube.

 

[Corax]

misrepresentation is hard to support when the evidence is all over youtube.

Their argument is that the footage is either edited, or selective and ignores what's happened 'just before' - the implication being that minutes before the camera started rolling, the peaceful protesters were a baying mob hurling petrol bombs.

You and I know it's bollocks, but it'll be a large part of the argument they make in defence, and on past evidence they're likely to be taken at their word to some extent at least.

 

[durruti02]

As regards responding to police violence on demonstrations with passivity, peaceful resistance or an organised response of resistance, I personally think these questions are tactical considerations and not issues of principle.

Passivity combined with detailed recording of the events by legal observers and plenty of filmed evidence was certainly a successful tactic as deployed by the Climate Camp. Of course this success came at a price - many peaceful demonstrators were terrorised, bruised, battered and someone could have been killed there. For Ian Tomlinson at the RBS he was assaulted and subesquently died just because he was there. So non-violence has not deterred the police from violent attacks on demonstrators. It has however, assisted in winning the war for hearts and minds.

However, on other occassions there are other tactical considerations. The Tamil protest yesterday was non-violent but did manage to forecably push through police lines to occupy the streets and in sufficient numbers to ensure they could not be moved without the deployment of violence on the part of the police (something the police for obvious reasons were unprepared to do at present).

At some point I suspect that progressive change will be resisted by armed force on the part of the state - not just battons but whatever is deemed necessary to quash a movement. If the rich and their state felt that their very rule was threatened there are no real limits to the violence they will contemplate. At that point public opinion and strength of numbers may be on our side but the state may still resort (would be likely to resort) to significant violence. In which case mere passive resistance will not be enough.

In the meantime, too much concentration on street fighting tactics in response to police violence can be counter-productive. It could deter the majority of the public who are not up for violent confrontation from joining protest movements (this is one of the reasons the state provokes violence). A violent response from the protesters (and I have always defended those who are moved to fight back against police aggression) can provide amunition for the distorted press coverage we are used to and make it easier for the police to increase their violence.

Instead we are now - right now - at a point where it is becoming harder for the police to violently assault peaceful protests. We should seize the time to push our advantage. Continue to video record every protest, insist on our right to march. Resist attempts to kettle where possible through passive resistance. More and more people are showing a willingness to get involved in pressing for change in response to the environmental challenge we face and the economic crisis capitalism faces.

good post

 

[Kaka Tim]

On the surface the fact that people did not react violently to the violence of the police at the g20 has been postive - as it has allowed the media to run with the whole 'police brutality' discourse and may well casue the cops to back off at future protests - although I'm pretty sure this would be a temporary respite.

Poilcing of demonstrations over the past ten years has become increasingly co-ercive whilst the level of aggo from protestors is significently less. In the 80s demonstrations seemed far more likely to end in riots and people seemed more prepared to take on the cops - this cumilated in the poll tax riot where the police charged into the crowd, lost control and got a battering.

Since then the police have seemd far less likely to try and forcilby disperse crowds and instead prefer 'kettling', another factor that has made this tactic more practical is the amount of protective kit the riot cops have these days -body armour, helmets, shields, CS spray, telescopic batons.

Maybe If people had been less passive in the face of police violence over the past ten years it would have made them less likely to use force unless they (or they're masters) felt they had to - i.e. blocking an angry crowd descending on the houses of parliament or two thousand black bloc anarkids descending on the stock market.

Instead we have the police treating any non- establsihment sanctioned protest - like the climate camps - as if its a full on riot no matter how fluffy or media freindly.

Basically if people reacted in fury to such outrageous tactics they might be less likely to use them in the future - could you imagine the french or greeks tolereating the CRS kettling every single picket and protest? It certinaly wouldn't have been tolerated in the 70s when britain had a militant workers movement.

Personally I'm not confident that the current furore will make any lasting difference to how the poilce behave - they are there to protect the interests of wealth and power and anything that seriously challenges that will always be met with violence.

Remember Blair Peach was murdered by the spg - there was a public outcry and it made absolutely no difference to how the police beahved. With reagrds to the G20, no copper will be charged for manslaughter, they're will be some tut tuts and a half hearted rooting out of 'bad apples', senior coppers will say 'lessons leraned' and the boots and batons will continue to go in.

We have allowed them to get so confidnet that their violence will have no repucsusions they now dish out the beatings and bring out the kettle eveytime a few hundred hippies stike up the bongos in public.

On balance I think it would be a postive development if people were prepared to try and force their way out of police ketteles and defend themselves - however in someways this is all a cul-de-sac because unless they're is a poular, mass movement behind protests and radicalism will we always be marginlised, ignored and/or batonned - whatever the mainstream media have as their flavour of the month.