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

[ymu]

@ winjer

that's not what i'm seeing (on the youtube link anyway, the other one was buffering too slowly so i gave up). I can see people shouting but nothing that i would call violence against the police

It comes down to what you define as violence. In NVDA terms, pushing back when pushed or even firmly standing your ground may be considered violence. Surrounding police to intimidate them and get someone de-arrested is violence. Hell, harsh words are violence for some groups.

Winjer's point is that there was a lot more than passive resistance going on. It wasn't just crowds of people allowing themselves to be trampled. To most people, this doesn't look violent it looks perfectly reasonable. And it is, but it's not defined as non-violent.

 

[_pH_]

It comes down to what you define as violence. In NVDA terms, pushing back when pushed or even firmly standing your ground may be considered violence. Surrounding police to intimidate them and get someone de-arrested is violence. Hell, harsh words are violence for some groups.

Winjer's point is that there was a lot more than passive resistance going on. It wasn't just crowds of people allowing themselves to be trampled. To most people, this doesn't look violent it looks perfectly reasonable. And it is, but it's not defined as non-violent.

I don't define violence the same way as you then And you're are contradicting yourself by saying that NVDA may be considered violence

Especially when compared to the tactics at e.g., Genoa, or even Poll Tax

e2a: i'm still interested to know whether winjer was at the Climate Camp.

 

[ymu]

Don't think I've seen this particular video of the climate camp before.

Same incident as seen before, but from a different camera I think.

Several assaults I've not seen before in there. It's not in the climate camp film either. Only posted a couple of days ago, so I guess they'll have it by now.

 

[ymu]

I don't define violence the same way as you then And you're are contradicting yourself by saying that NVDA may be considered violence

Especially when compared to the tactics at e.g., Genoa, or even Poll Tax

e2a: i'm still interested to know whether winjer was at the Climate Camp.

Where did I say NVDA could be considered violence?

It's not how I define violence, it's how the movement defines it. It's why I support non-non-violent action. I think people should push back.

 

[_pH_]

In NVDA terms, pushing back when pushed or even firmly standing your ground may be considered violence.

um, here?

movement? what movement?

 

[ymu]

um, here?

movement? what movement?

"In NVDA terms" - ie using the terminology and beliefs of the non-violent direct action movement. The NVDA movement considers pushing back or possibly even standing your ground to be violence.

The "movement" is a broad term to cover those groups using NVDA, and who have developed the concept as we use it today. It's presumably winjer's reference point for peaceful resistance. Groups like Trident Ploughshares, who will do criminal damage but not raise their voice to a person, or ISM who help to create a space for non-violent resistance in a situation where violence threatens to disenfranchise most people from their own struggle.

Of course, each group has to define its own acceptable limits, but in general if physical confrontation is a tactic, the group won't be defined as exclusively non-violent.

 

[_pH_]

what a load of bullshit pedantry!

that's why there is no 'movement', just a bunch of disparate groups arguing over the meaning of violence and NVDA more effort seems to be put into arguing these points than actually doing anything worthwhile, it's been evident on this thread. and tbh, anyone who thinks there was violence from the majority of the protestors at G20 is incredibly naive.

not that I really give a toss tbh. what is of more concern to me is that people like winjer are attempting to make out on here that the tactics used at G20 by protestors were 'violent' when public/press opinion is that the protests were peaceful (by and large) and the police were the ones using the violence. what a totally crass thing to do, possibly endangering the public support for those who were victims of police violence, solely for the aim of wanting to seem 'less fluffy than thou'. I despair, I really do

 

[ymu]

Well, that's the point really. There's a lot less distinction between the tactics of the black bloc and those "peaceful" tactics that most people find acceptable. Groups doing NVDA in places like Palestine need to be pretty bloody sure of the ground rules, and those ground rules need to be pretty bloody strict. Likewise any group doing an action which risks serious injury or serious charges. In places like the UK, and in less intense situations, the ground rules can be a lot more flexible. You don't get involved in a strictly NVDA environment without being asked to think very carefully about what you mean by non-violence, and whether you can abide by what the group means by non-violence.

Anyways, I think winjer is just pointing out that there is a false dichotomy being drawn between the peaceful types (who turned out in force) and the black bloc types (who either didn't bother or were tailed by their own personal riot squad all day). It's not that simple.

 

[_pH_]

yeah, I agree with you about Palestine, there's a far greater risk to anyone protesting there.

I still don't know what point winjer is trying to make though, and would still like to know whether he/she was at Climate Camp

 

[editor]

Winjer's point is that there was a lot more than passive resistance going on. It wasn't just crowds of people allowing themselves to be trampled. To most people, this doesn't look violent it looks perfectly reasonable. And it is, but it's not defined as non-violent.

'Peaceful' was the word I used and the vast majority of protesters were just that: peaceful.

 

[newbie]

Why do you consistently marginalize militant women?

I was a bit rushed earlier, so I'd like to come back to this.

Have a gander at the crowdshots of three demonstrations below. In two of them the substantial majority are youngish (below obvious middle age anyway) while the third has much more mixed ages. In one of the sets the crowds are apparently mostly men, but that's not so much the case in the other two.

There's no prizes for guessing which is which, because it's pretty plain, even without looking at too many random photos.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=G20+BANK+PROTEST+LONDON
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=G20+CLIMATE+CAMP+PROTEST+LONDON
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=TAMIL+PROTEST+LONDON

tbh I don't think it's my doing that the presence of women, militant or otherwise, was a bit marginal during the protest at the bank. Nor that there were relatively few protesters there apparently middle aged or older, nor those with mobility aids, nor children bunking off school, nor any of the other demographics that could have been there, but weren't.

Since posting earlier I've paid a visit to the Tamil occupation of Parliament Square, where ages range from babies to the elderly & infirm, including lots of kids, lots of middle-aged, possibly more women than men; youngish men are a minority, just as they are in society at large. They're surrounded by police (all with shoulder numbers ), but their defiance is obvious, and their protest is no more legal (or illegal) than that at the bank or climate camp. Just more effective. They've held the square for a week or more, blocked traffic, held off police attack, insisted on doing what they want as their protest.

I'd urge others to go and visit them, talk to them, and hopefully be a bit inspired by their inclusive protest.

There are no unambiguous conclusions to draw from any of this, so I'm not going to try, and anyway I've run out of time.

 

[Corax]

Bugger all press coverage though.

ETA: Something to lighten the mood.

When I was a child I was frightened by this tide of evil, a dark undercurrent which whispered, "Doom," and was called the Communist Bloc. Times changed, and the sun came out. I felt less frightened. More fool me. The tide and the currents are still here, I just stopped seeing them. Suddenly I've seen a glimpse of that dangerous undertow. I don't like it.

roflmao

 

[newbie]

Bugger all press coverage though.

true but I guess the people they're trying to communicate with are in Sri Lanka and diasporered around the world, not guardian readers here.

 

[Zaskar]

From 2004.
Pretty tame.
Posted now cos it illustrates this is just sooo common.
The woman getting shoved by the man being shoved by the officer was not a yuff by a long shot.
The demo was cool and totally peaceful apart from that officers actions.
Excuse daft gfx - lost raw video.

 

[GoneCoastal]

Apparently the 3rd time The Standard have had to apologise for mis-reporting about the Climate Camp http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...ification:+Camp+for+Climate+Action/article.do

And I didn't catch this before (not being a standard reader) but this makes interesting reading too http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...trol.+Step+in+and+sort+them,+Boris/article.do few daft remarks in it but a lot of truth and the more of it's readership see articles like this....

 

[tar1984]

Bugger all press coverage though.

ETA: Something to lighten the mood.



roflmao

Where is that quote from?

 

[winjer]

Which would you have preferred?

You present a false dichotomy as ymu rightly pointed out.

I'd prefer the kettled crowd to rightly respond to police attacks, I'd prefer even more that they had been self-organised enough to prevent kettling in the first place.

 

[e19896]

You present a false dichotomy as ymu rightly pointed out.

I'd prefer the kettled crowd to rightly respond to police attacks, I'd prefer even more that they had been self-organised enough to prevent kettling in the first place.

agreed same here, however you have to at least be frank enough to say there actions exposed the police, for what they are and stand for, and for a crowd to rightly respond to police attacks it has to be a organised ie a movement, self-organised enough to prevent kettling in the first place same again we need an organised anarchist movement, if only the climate camp people took there anarchism to the next stage, as it stands the main players are Middle Class and feel that change can come from within, something i do agree with, but capitlism aint going to go from refrom but it,s ababalition no matter how polite you ask The Nasty Police Man to stop beating kicking, where the actions leads to a death, it will not happen, 21 days on and still no one charged for the Death of Ian, nither no one charged for anything else they did..

 

[winjer]

And I was in a kettle-busting shove, you muppet - that's how LDR and I got out. We were near the front too. It was not violent.

If you can point out where I said every breakout was violent, please do so.

Did you even go to the Climate Camp, btw?

Not the camp itself, no. I was at the North and South police lines at various points, roughly 4pm, 7pm, 9pm. Why do you ask?

 

[winjer]

what is of more concern to me is that people like winjer are attempting to make out on here that the tactics used at G20 by protestors were 'violent' when public/press opinion is that the protests were peaceful (by and large) and the police were the ones using the violence.

My point is that some protesters used force and public opinion is not against them, because most people are not opposed to people defending themselves, as I said.

 

[_pH_]

My point is that some protesters used force and public opinion is not against them, because most people are not opposed to people defending themselves, as I said.

this has all come down to semantics and pedantics on how 'force'/'violence' is defined. pointless debate really

 

[Squatticus]

this has all come down to semantics and pedantics on how 'force'/'violence' is defined. pointless debate really

Actually this is a really important issue.

In contemporary discourse, 'force' has connotation of legitimacy, and 'violence' illegitimacy.

This distinction is replicated in the description of specific acts, e.g. as part of the establishment counterattack on the G20 issue, I have heard them try to describe certain strikes like punching and kicking as 'distraction techniques' (don't think that one will have much purchase, somehow!)

The main point is that progressives should stop arguing that 'violence is sometimes justified', but realise (and state) that 'force is regrettably sometimes necessary'.

The opposition are usually smart enough about this*, and we're selling ourselves short if we're not.


*I did notice one slip: when the Nichola Fisher video came out, a BBC correspondent was explaining that 'the police are allowed to use violence in certain circumstances'. No: it its allowed, then by definition it's 'reasonable force'.

 

[e19896]

this has all come down to semantics and pedantics on how 'force'/'violence' is defined. pointless debate really

This debate has been before, fluthy v spikey if I remember, nothing come of this, here we are again, we have come down to semantics and pedantics on how 'force'/'violence' is defined, you are not going to enlighten the Middle Class, a baton on there heads a kick in from The Nasty Police Man, is neither going to do this either, there class status to be frank will always mean they see holding the system accountable for the few bad apples in The Police force, i.e. complain to the IPPC etc., is there way forward, there are a few exceptions agreed.

 

[butchersapron]

this has all come down to semantics and pedantics on how 'force'/'violence' is defined. pointless debate really

Who defines it is probably more important.

 

[berniedicters]

This debate has been before, fluthy v spikey if I remember, nothing come of this, here we are again, we have come down to semantics and pedantics on how 'force'/'violence' is defined, you are not going to enlighten the Middle Class, a baton on there heads a kick in from The Nasty Police Man, is neither going to do this either, there class status to be frank will always mean they see holding the system accountable for the few bad apples in The Police force, i.e. complain to the IPPC etc., is there way forward, there are a few exceptions agreed.

I do wish you'd stop talking about the "Middle Class" as if they were some kind of alien species, enumbers. As far as this particular aspect of policing is concerned, I don't think there is any kind of hard distinction between your oh-so-precious working class and these demons you constantly refer to.

It might even be, in this somewhat middle-class-dominated society, that the best thing you could do if you really wanted to do something about police brutality would be to get the middle classes onside, instead of marginalising and alienating them all the time.

But I suspect that would interfere with the purity of your ideology, so not likely to happen any time soon. Nor, for that matter, is anything meaningful going to happen on the question of police brutality, if the methods you endorse are the only ones to go by.

 

[berniedicters]

Where is that quote from?

Corax is Our Man on the Police Oracle. It's a bit of rabble-rousing tubthumping from that idiotic message board where they preen each other and groom themselves for going out and punching people in the face

 

[tar1984]

Corax is Our Man on the Police Oracle. It's a bit of rabble-rousing tubthumping from that idiotic message board where they preen each other and groom themselves for going out and punching people in the face

Ha! The people on that message board are mental!

 

[berniedicters]

Ha! The people on that message board are mental!

They're also Policing Our Streets. Scary, isn't it?

 

[tar1984]

They're also Policing Our Streets. Scary, isn't it?

Yep.

 

[ymu]

The Guardian's been reading the cop forums too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/21/police-blogs-g20