A Debate on Protest Tactics. What works, what doesn't
June 27, 2010 - 4:54pm
After getting a glimpse of the security apparatus, and watching tactics succeed/fail. Anyone have any suggestions on updating or employing new tactics for future events?
1. how do we stop the snatch and grab raids on innocent people by riot cops. didn't seem that anyone was prepared for that. Is there any good ways to challenge that?
2. Civil Disobedience. any suggestions for large scale civil disobedience beyond the act of public assembly. There must be ways to clog things up with a group that large and make it difficult for police to do their work. There must be actions we can undertake to demonstrate the ideas were supporting beyond what we're doing already that would symbolically humiliate the security apparatus.
Moved to Activism
I wish more people were.
Figure that once they are aware of the strategy that they will be trying to come up with ways to prevent it or undermine it. This is true in both sports and politics.
For example, black blockers say that they only target big corporate images that they leave the mom and pop businesses alone. I doubt that the agents provacateurs leave the mom and pops alone.
Both black blockers and agents provocateurs don't like cameras showing their faces. So how can we prove who did what?
Peaceful protestors want to document abuses. But phones (which contain cameras) can also be used to detonate bombs (or so they say). I think that Nintendo DSI also contains a camera.
Great idea for a thread milo204, though if someone has a really new and surprising tactic in mind it is probably not such a good idea to post it here in public where the authorities are certain to read it.
What about the tactics the authorities use? What is good for the goose ...
One strategy that the authorities came up with at the SPP meetings were to word new laws (or changes in laws) as regulations, rather than legislations so that one doesn't have to go through Parliament or the Legislature to get it passed. These new laws that the Police are using that allow them to arrest anyone who doesn't show ID make use of this strategy.
What other strategies did you witness the police use?
Judging from the reports on TV, it seems that the police have borrowed strategies originally used either to herd cattle or to hunt buffalo. Some people describing it make it sound like a scene from Lion King.
I'd have liked to see downtown Toronto abandoned by activists this weekend. The sight of a vacant urban area, populated by nothing more than cops in riot gear guarding a fence, would have been a beautiful symbol of the brute force behind of the G20 and its sterilising effect on the world.
I like the tactic of exposing agents provocateurs.
But, in general, I agree with unionist. The best tactic is overwhelming numbers. Who gives a shit what the police do if there are tens or hundreds of thousands of citizens exercising their rights? Outnumber the enemy. That usually works.
I'd have liked to see downtown Toronto abandoned by activists this weekend. The sight of a vacant urban area, populated by nothing more than cops in riot gear guarding a fence, would have been a beautiful symbol of the brute force behind of the G20 and its sterilising effect on the world.
And instead of marching in downtown Toronto, march in the neighborhoods of the wealthy. How long do you think it would take the police to abandon the so called “world leaders” to protect the people who really call the shots?
I like the tactic of exposing agents provocateurs.
But, in general, I agree with unionist. The best tactic is overwhelming numbers. Who gives a shit what the police do if there are tens or hundreds of thousands of citizens exercising their rights? Outnumber the enemy. That usually works.
Unless the numbers scare them enough to just start with the attacks instead of waiting for someone to start the ball rolling be it protestor or agents provocateurs
I like the idea of no protesters at all or entirely peaceful ones who hand over to the police (while filming it) ANYONE who does a violent/vandalistic act. Um officers, we handed over ten guys who started throwing shit and breaking windows. Did you charge them all? Yes who are they? no why not?CP24 has been broadcasting an appeal by Police for people to send them their photos and vids of protesters and protest actions for identification, arrest and investigation purposes..
I'd have liked to see downtown Toronto abandoned by activists this weekend. The sight of a vacant urban area, populated by nothing more than cops in riot gear guarding a fence, would have been a beautiful symbol of the brute force behind of the G20 and its sterilising effect on the world.
And instead of marching in downtown Toronto, march in the neighborhoods of the wealthy. How long do you think it would take the police to abandon the so called “world leaders” to protect the people who really call the shots?
That's a great idea.
I like the tactic of exposing agents provocateurs.
But, in general, I agree with unionist. The best tactic is overwhelming numbers. Who gives a shit what the police do if there are tens or hundreds of thousands of citizens exercising their rights? Outnumber the enemy. That usually works.
Unless the numbers scare them enough to just start with the attacks instead of waiting for someone to start the ball rolling be it protestor or agents provocateurs
I like the idea of no protesters at all or entirely peaceful ones who hand over to the police (while filming it) ANYONE who does a violent/vandalistic act.
Um officers, we handed over ten guys who started throwing shit and breaking windows. Did you charge them all? Yes who are they? no why not?Giving info to the cops after the fact is an entirely different tactic than self policing. Any successful DIY scene self polices (back when punk rock was more than nostalgia, we used to do this). Since it's clear that the police disguise themselves as "Black Bloc Anarchists" (don't you love a recognizable brand and premade identity complete with uniform?) to start violence then anyone starting violence should be viewed with suspicion and stopped, unmasked and documented by protestors. I don't care about the property being destroyed, I can about the people being hurt by these actions. The more documentation of agent provocateurs that happens, the more transparent the game being played by the powers that be becomes and the more obvious it is that anyone claiming to be revolutionary by breaking shit is just as reactionary and unthinking part of the oppressive machine as the police are. You have no alternatives to violence, you ARE the state. You have no original thoughts and just spout doctrine written a hundred years ago, you ARE a reactionary part of the state apparatus and complicit in the oppression of millions (even though, like the police, you continually claim to be a victim and look for a scapegoat instead of simply being self responsible).
So I think direct action by protesters to prevent violence in the moment, and documenting how protestors actually keep the peace (as is so often the case), is a very useful tactic. Look at how well it worked at Montebello - it worked so well we now have proof that the police plant cops dressed as anarchists to start riots. That was a beautiful example of collective action to protect the people from the police, which also made the police tactics and game transparent. The same thing should have been done in Toronto....I wonder whose idea it was to run interference so nothing could be documented? Who loses the most by being identified? Surely not an anarchist who is willing to put their body on the line for the cause...it really would be the cops who get unmasked as agent provocateurs who would be exposed not only to the world and media but would also be blowing their undercover status with the groups they're influencing to commit violence.
I'd have liked to see downtown Toronto abandoned by activists this weekend. The sight of a vacant urban area, populated by nothing more than cops in riot gear guarding a fence, would have been a beautiful symbol of the brute force behind of the G20 and its sterilising effect on the world.
And instead of marching in downtown Toronto, march in the neighborhoods of the wealthy. How long do you think it would take the police to abandon the so called “world leaders” to protect the people who really call the shots?
That's a great idea.
Thanks for the compliment
We could also march on their country clubs, private schools and anywhere else they like to hang out.
I'm against making citizen's arrest on vandals or even taking their pictures. You may not agree with their tactics but remember they are on our side and handing them over to the enemy is treacherous even if the intent isn't malevolent.
Use reason with your comrades but don't betray them.
What Fifi says. And should we need to give a reason for banadana yanking, it's clear: you cover your face, we assume you're a cop. Montebello proved the need to think like this and I think it's a great way to shut down the self righteous bullshit we get from some of the masked wonders who actually aren't cops. I can see doing this in the moment because I can trust my own eyes and (more importantly) those of my affinity group.It would need to be done in a group, though, and I for one would want some intervention training. I figure we need all the old union dudes n maids to offer that kind of quasi-picket line enforcement training, instead of being pressed into service as human shields between the cops and the real protesters.
Thread drift-- Re the cop call for stooges. Talk about an admission that their de facto martial law failed to stop anything truly stupid from happening. First they arrest 900, then they go to the public asking for rats. Well, I guess the people I saw thanking the cops and offering support yesterday can oblige, since I'm sure the so-called Black Bloc was in the jazz festival tent with them taking in the tunes. Wonder how many false leads will be generated with this call... thousands, I hope. -- end thread drift.
I think that all citizens should turn in every single person they see breaking a law in Canada. Take pictures of speeders in cars first and foremost since the carnage on the roads is the biggest cause of death in our country.
I pledge allegiance to the police and I'll help them in their efforts to enforce all the laws of this great colony. Pax Americana Forever.
I hope that the nice police officers are able to restrain themselves enough so that they only kick the shit out of anyone they think is a member of the black bloc and not get too excited and off them.
Continued from last post
My objection on practical grounds is that any attempt to make a citizen's arrest will escalate the violence and most liking result in a melee. Instead of portraying the majority of protesters as peaceful and law abiding citizens, the mainstream media will spin it as the protesters are a rioting mob.
Removing someone's overly convenient anonymity is hardly doing the cops' work for them, Kropotkin. I figure removing a face covering is simply levelling the playing field. And if the coveree is a cop or otherwise paid by them or duped by them, so much the better. Unmasking kinda puts them in an awkward position, don't you think? If they're not the former, why the sudden need for a mask, especially since the people involved in the BS Saturday remained unmasked and used the rest of us as cover during the march, then used us as cover again to change clothes and cover up before running away to become State tools.
If the person is attempting to do something they think is worthwhile, they do not need to wait for a designated day of public protest to do it. And many do not. The glueing shut of ATMs is a case in point.So were the highly effective ARA actions in the 80 and 90s that outed white supremacists publicly and eventually drove them off the streets and out of our schools.
We've gone over this terrain many times, so forgive me if this is covered in other threads. If true members of the Black Bloc believe in what they are about, why wait for the cover of strictly non violent protesters to do it? I find that kind of behaviour pure chickenshit. And I don't think any of the *true* direct activists are cowards. Compare a Shawn Brant to Saturday's jerks, for example.
Which circles us back to asking who exactly is running around in convenient anonymity at these protests; why they choose this moment to do it; what their true agenda is; and what we do about it. Seems to me the only common denominator so far is: no more hiding your identity. Try it and we will collectively remove it.
As for unmasking sparking melees-- I agree it's a risk, but we have the melees anyway and they're disempowering, dangerous, and useless.
How are the people wearing masks breaking stuff in any way helping the situation or aligned with peaceful protesters? Particularly when they're actually supporting the police agenda and are either paid tools of the state or unwitting ones. Sure it's fun to blow stuff up - it's one reason why young men join the police forced and army, and religious terrorist groups, they enjoy the excitement of feeling powerful through violence too.
I'm not talking about people who put on a mask when tear gas is sprayed, I'm talking about people who create a media spectacle and then get all outraged that it's a media spectacle. (I mean, are you really that stupid or does it just make you hard to break stuff?) Though, of course, the cops were damn sure that they had all kinds of people (mainly girls from what I could see, talk about sexist division of labour!) running interference so their plants wouldn't get unmasked. If you watch the film from Montebello, you'll see that the real anarchists were quite willing to take down their masks and cooperate in unmasking cops masquerading as anarchists. This was my experience in Quebec too, where the "anarchists" weren't local to Quebec or Montreal. And the real anarchists at Montebello weren't the ones holding rocks and threatening violence, it was the faux anarchists. Fake anarchists - whether they're cops or just kiddies who like the prefab identity AnarchyTM gives them - work for the police state so aren't our allies. They don't want constructive change, they just want destruction and more war between ideological factions (thereby keeping the reactive duality that the state presents as "choice" - right vs left, etc - active). All of this gets in the way of discussing what we, collectively, can do together to protect our communities and our planet.
And, yes, obviously unmasking should be something discussed and agreed upon as a tactic beforehand, and it is something that should be done collectively and by people who know how to intervene (though I wouldn't underestimate how cowardly these kids are when faced by a number of people, it's why they choose to do shit using peaceful protesters as cover).
Use reason with your comrades but don't betray them.
I agree with you on that point. The fact is I think I have a responsibility to protect my comrades from theft or vandalism, just like I would expect them to look out for me. And I would try to reason with them and explain that these vandals are doing nothing to help the struggle for social justice.
I agree totally with attempting to reason. But I've found it difficult to impossible in the moment; often people just move away, complete with swearing and threats. I think the sheer level of adrenaline or testosterone gets in the way and self righteousness combined with arrogance amps up both those natural highs.
Demasking changes the power dynamic. The mask can come off, then we can talk (whether that will happen or not is another question!). But I think it needs to be a non negotiable starting point. I should add that I'm not talking about removing a niqab or other religious clothing here, especially since I have not ONCE seen a masked woman of colour. Not once.
I contrast this with four gutsy young Indigenous people Saturday. They are always cop targets under the best of circumstances. Yet there they were, wearing Two Row wampum and Warrior flags, with one man wearing a ceremonial headdress, making them stand out in a very obvious and proud manner. They were talking things through with other protestors on Queen while the White masked wonders in the background stomped on an abandoned bait cop car. I think that was the moment when I realised I had ceased supporting diversity of tactics as we've defined them for the past ten years or so.
That said, I feel I am expressing an ideal, not reality. Chasing people and pulling off their masks is easier said than done, and not exactly what I want to do and be seen doing all the way through a protest. Nor does it address other serious issues, like a total lack of agreed upon goals and common messaging.
Here we see good people, gathered in a just cause - but without leadership and organization, unable to stop some assholes from hijacking that just cause. Only when we can organize and crush the provocations without (a) ignoring them; (b) justifying them; or (c) calling the cops for "help", will we be able to mount effective protests. Indeed, the numbers will massively increase when ordinary people are confident they will not be dragged into car-burning and window-smashing adventures:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-5jeaIh4YE
I surrender you are all right. The police state that we saw on display would not have happened if various groups of young people had not broken windows over the last ten years at protests across North America. The benevolent state is not the problem, it is the tactics of the trouble makers. Without those trouble makers Harper would have listened to the voices of the people in the streets and proposed more spending on social services not deep slashing of programs as a global solution.
Mea culpa!! I should have realized the power of window breaking. You have made me see the light. Such powerful provocations of the benevolent state need to be suppressed by citizens everywhere. Damn those fucking anarchist with their needless violence, they have brought this great evil upon our heads. There is everyone happy now.
My neighbour is growing pot for his arthritis without a license I think I will report him because he is an anarchist and doesn't want to follow the proper procedure laid out by our democratic state.
This is very important actually, because that is the only way it can increase, unless it gets so bad that people en masse have no choice but to take to the streets or be slaves to a fascist world governing body.
people across Canada should really be peacefully protesting in the streets in solidarity, until inquiries and resignations across the board happen, and I would like to think that labour unions would be getting on that....
kropotkin I do not think that is fair at all, as unionist specifically stated without calling the cops for help.
plus you just ratted your neighbour out and watch him/her get busted shortly, and know it was your loose lips here
I surrender you are all right. The police state that we saw on display would not have happened if various groups of young people had not broken windows over the last ten years at protests across North America.
Not sure who said that. Let me say it more clearly: We must learn to deal simultaneously with the enemy without and the enemy within.
The second thing is that social change will only be made by plain ordinary people. If you can't figure out how to mobilize them, might as well go home and stay there. Plain ordinary people hate assholes like the ones shown in the video above. You may not agree with plain ordinary people. But if you don't understand them, and cater to them, you will lose.
I think the First Nation example of having women be the ones who stand between the amped up men and the police, to be a great one. or elders. perhaps having them get between the bloc/cops and their targets would be good, or surrounding blocs to keep them in the protest but away from vandalism might be a good idea? as well as forming a line to separate cops from protesters, since almost all the riot cops are men that would make violent action extremely awkward.
Also, since they're all in uniform (bloc), how about confronting them to demand they respect the protest (by designated marshalls?), or hold their own separate action if that's what they want, but at least respect those that are here to protest because as others have said we may differ in tactcs but we all share many of the same views.
This is very important actually, because that is the only way it can increase, unless it gets so bad that people en masse have no choice but to take to the streets or be slaves to a fascist world governing body.
I wouldn't expect things to get that desperate here anytime soon. After all, they do need to keep part of the world (OUR part) relatively fat and happy enough that we keep buying all their useless garbage, and there are plenty of people who wouldn't worry about fascism so long as they got to keep their 44 channels.
And yes, I am aware that there are some very hungry and very desparate people here too - a lot of them in rural areas and reserves where they CAN"T take to the streets en masse and overwhelm the police - but it ain't like the rest of the world just yet.
My neighbour is growing pot for his arthritis without a license I think I will report him because he is an anarchist and doesn't want to follow the proper procedure laid out by our democratic state.
Narc ;)
The black block always hide in groups of paceful protestors. If the peaceful ones made sure that the black block wasn't welcome within their group maybe the police would feel more comfortable targeting the block and leaving the rest of us alone.
So the MSM and the right now owns the term "black bloc". Looks like we need to reconsider that tactic.
One word: Vuvuzela!
you made sure that got preserved, eh sparky!
as far as I believe it, the 'black bloc' always was theirs, a who on the left would label their group "black" anything?
I surrender you are all right. The police state that we saw on display would not have happened if various groups of young people had not broken windows over the last ten years at protests across North America. The benevolent state is not the problem, it is the tactics of the trouble makers. Without those trouble makers Harper would have listened to the voices of the people in the streets and proposed more spending on social services not deep slashing of programs as a global solution.
Mea culpa!! I should have realized the power of window breaking. You have made me see the light. Such powerful provocations of the benevolent state need to be suppressed by citizens everywhere. Damn those fucking anarchist with their needless violence, they have brought this great evil upon our heads. There is everyone happy now.
My neighbour is growing pot for his arthritis without a license I think I will report him because he is an anarchist and doesn't want to follow the proper procedure laid out by our democratic state.
It wasn't a problem of anarchy, krop, but a choice of tactics. We can be upset with the police state that has emerged but the choice to gear up to fight police and smash windows was exactly what was hoped for to delegitimize all our voices. Burning cop cars make great footage that works against our causes.
Harper must be awefully sure his base is willing to go for a police state, eh! As is McGuinty, and the ON provincial CONs for that matter too.
Harper must be awefully sure his base is willing to go for a police state, eh! As is McGuinty, and the ON provincial CONs for that matter too.
I'm not aware of any public outcry over the agreement a few years ago with the U.S. allowing our armed forces to cross into each others' countries in case of emergency; what happened last weekend is small compared to the implications of that. Sadly there are plenty of Canadians who would vote for that kind of state control if they thought it could keep things peaceful and orderly; it wouldn't even be fascism.
As for tactics I think that the unions should not allow anyone to march in their fucking useless parades unless they willingly sign a declaration saying they will be non-violent and show their faces and have their pictures taken. They can then be issued nice official looking tags so the Sergeants at Arms can roust any non conformers.
The reason this whole debate makes me livid is that anyone who has protested for decades knows that marching peacefully with a sign will never change Harpers mind. Unionist knows it and so does everyone else who follows the global reach of this police state.
So in our frustration we blame the youth who don't have pensions and benefits to protect and are frustrated and angry that they live in a police state and no one is ever fucking polite to them. Yeah lets have an endless debate about how they ruined it all for everyone. What a a load of steaming bullshit?
This has nothing to do with anarchy it has to with rage against the machine. But here and everywhere else the supposed left picks up the police state media's story that it is the black bloc who causes the PIGS to be so bad. Its bad enough that the police can say the "devil" made me do it. What makes it over the top is people here saying; "yeah stop making the police violent."
Protests don't work get over it and stay home, just please stop implying that somehow it is not the police state that is the problem.
I surrender you are all right. The police state that we saw on display would not have happened if various groups of young people had not broken windows over the last ten years at protests across North America. The benevolent state is not the problem, it is the tactics of the trouble makers. Without those trouble makers Harper would have listened to the voices of the people in the streets and proposed more spending on social services not deep slashing of programs as a global solution.
So, a few broken windows and strategically placed abandoned police cars burned, and that justifies unlawfull arrests now. Interesting, where some would set the bar for "necessary" totalitarianism. I hope, Kropotkin, you never get the government you deserve.
=======================
I think it may be premature to have a discussion about what works and what doesn't. And, I don't think there can be such a determionation untill there's a concensus of what it was these protests meant to accomplish.
If it was to expose the inherent totalitarianism in Toronto Police, the Liberal Party of Ontario and the Conservative Party of Canada, then the protest was successfull, and I wouldn't change much.
Again, if it was to change the media coverage from photo ops and the blather speak of the G20 leaders to the protests, then I'm thinking it was probably a success, too. Although, I haven't looked at all the MSM coverage to make that determination.
But, if the idea was to have a peacefull march where various groups are able to get their own messages out, then it was a failure.
I think before you discuss tactics, you first have to determine what it is one hopes to accomplish.
I hope, Kropotkin, you never get the government you deserve.
=======================
Just in case you missed the point of the quote above; (given its "subtlety") it is sarcasm.
So do I deserve a good or a bad government?
I hope you reread this post and restate it because it seemed like you are judgmentally telling me I deserve a police state. If that is what you intended then may I ask what would make you wish that I live in a police state? Is it moral fiber that is being tested for being deserving or some other unstated criteria?
Did I missundertand you? Upon further reading, it appears that I did.
A thousand pardons, Kropotkin. I should have gone with my gut; it struck me as really odd in the first place. This caps off a day of brain farts for me.
Actually, upon even further thought, I think I will have a little self imposed hiatus until I can think a bit more clearly.
Anyone have any suggestions on updating or employing new tactics for future events?
1. how do we stop the snatch and grab raids on innocent people by riot cops.
2. Civil Disobedience. any suggestions for large scale civil disobedience beyond the act of public assembly. There must be ways to clog things up with a group that large and make it difficult for police to do their work.
I am not sure if anyone is currently answering Milo204's original questions (athough I did like the idea of marching through rich neighborhoods). It would seem that the success that was Seattle has not been duplicated really. Does anyone have any new or different ideas? Maybe there is no point in demonstrating at G-8/G-20 events if nothing from progressives is being understood by those outside of our circles.
We really ought to re-focus what the goal and intent of any particular action is to be.
To me there seems to be three issues here; one, should violence be used at these protests?
Two, what should the peaceful protesters do about the violence, if anything?
And three, what should the peaceful tactics be?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One, I'm of the opinion that the Gandhi approach should be taken at least under the current conditions.
Two, as I've already stated nothing. I'll summarize my reasons; I believe it is unethical to betray our fellow protesters to the authorities even if we disagree with their tactics. Also I think that it would be divisive to the movement to be seen cooperating with the people we are suppose to be protesting against.
And three, expanding the protest to areas closer to home of the elites. Also a world wide general strike on the date of the next meeting would be impressive in my opinion.
I am not sure if anyone is currently answering Milo204's original questions (athough I did like the idea of marching through rich neighborhoods). It would seem that the success that was Seattle has not been duplicated really. Does anyone have any new or different ideas?
Well this may be nothing more than mental masturbation but here goes.
The police are essentially using the tactics of the phalanx. To defeat a phalanx you need to break it up. One could study military history to see how the ancients did it. Now I'm going to keep this non violent so I'll forgo the slings and arrows and cavalry charges or the modern equivalents of Molotov cocktails and motor vehicles.
One way to break up a phalanx and thus defeat it is with maneuver. This is hardy an easy task which is why maneuver is considered the peak of generalship. An idea that I have is for the protesters to assemble on a wide avenue with numerous narrow streets running off of it. When the assembled protesters are confronted by the police phalanx the protesters could break up into smaller groups each retreating down one of the narrower streets with the police in hot pursuit of course. The protesters could then circle back to regroup on the avenue and continue to march to their objective while the police try to regroup themselves.
If anyone is interested in this line of thought I'll try to come up with more ideas.
Cheers
How are the people wearing masks breaking stuff in any way helping the situation or aligned with peaceful protesters?
The people first march on Friday had a black bloc show up in solidarity. They had been asked beforehand to be there but not to engage in police provocation or vandalism They complied. After some organizers were grabbed, beaten by police and then released members of the black bloc broke ranks and formed a ring around our organizers to protect them. It was a beautiful display of solidarity. They also helped slow down the march when some of the differently abled people were getting left behind. The hippies just danced. I know who I prefer.
Ooooh... i hate posting twice in a row, but I just found this and it's awesome.
Cop Car Burned! ALl Criticisms of Global Capitalism Rendered Moot
by Propaghandi
As for tactics I think that the unions should not allow anyone to march in their fucking useless parades unless they willingly sign a declaration saying they will be non-violent and show their faces and have their pictures taken. They can then be issued nice official looking tags so the Sergeants at Arms can roust any non conformers.
The reason this whole debate makes me livid is that anyone who has protested for decades knows that marching peacefully with a sign will never change Harpers mind. Unionist knows it and so does everyone else who follows the global reach of this police state.
So in our frustration we blame the youth who don't have pensions and benefits to protect and are frustrated and angry that they live in a police state and no one is ever fucking polite to them. Yeah lets have an endless debate about how they ruined it all for everyone. What a a load of steaming bullshit?
This has nothing to do with anarchy it has to with rage against the machine. But here and everywhere else the supposed left picks up the police state media's story that it is the black bloc who causes the PIGS to be so bad. Its bad enough that the police can say the "devil" made me do it. What makes it over the top is people here saying; "yeah stop making the police violent."
Protests don't work get over it and stay home, just please stop implying that somehow it is not the police state that is the problem.
Kropotkin, thank you. Great post!
Now I'll respond to a few other posts.
how about confronting them to demand they respect the protest (by designated marshalls?), or hold their own separate action
I'd say that once a group breaks-off on it's own it has become a separate action. Wasn't this always understood to be what was going to happen? There was an agreement that everyone would start off together in an attempt at solidarity, but it was widely known that once the main march started to turn away from the fence, there would be others who would attempt to continue on towards the fence.
I have not ONCE seen a masked woman of colour. Not once.
Seriously? Well, I certainly have. And I have to tell you, this whole unmasking idea reeks of privilege. You can make all the assumptions you want about why someone would choose to mask up, and your assumptions may even be correct most of the time. But the fact is, you don't know why that person wants to conceal her/his identity. You don't need to wear a mask because you have nothing to hide? Well, bully for you! You can take your privilege and shove it!
I figure we need all the old union dudes n maids to offer that kind of quasi-picket line enforcement training
Ah yes, like the thugs who grabbed me and threatened to throw me off a bridge after a protest against the Tory policy convention in Ottawa because I questioned their right to prevent a disabled person from using the stairs on the Mackenzie King Bridge. These are the people who are going to train you to unmask "cops"? Some of these union marshals are bigger 'cops' than the real cops.
If that's true, that's pretty selective respect for "diversity of tactics" given how Saturday went down.
I will try to answer this question since most people aren't. One simple solution: If you don't want to get arrested, KEEP MOVING!
I was at the G20. I witnessed all the black bloc protestors disperse by about 5pm after the protest turned west on college st. Many other protestors continued to march to Queen's park. There were other scattered protests elsewhere. Protestors were trapped in many places or else had simply stopped marching and demonstrated in front of police. The people who tended to get arrested were sitting ducks, while I saw police retreat when they saw the roving property destroyers. The police were disorganized, and after getting reinforcements, they would march on passive protestors (and often bystanders) and assault them, arrest them, etc.
Later that night a protest at the novotel hotel met a similar fate. I wasn't at this one but I imagine it's because the protestors were standing in one place and got surrounded, and then arrested. A dance party held in front of the detention center was also standing still and got surrounded; the riot act was read and people dispersed, though some arrests were made egregiously for no reason.
On sunday a solidarity rally in front of the detention center was attacked by police for no reason and rubber bullets were fired. Again, protestors were static.
Since police are known to use excessive violence against passive protestors, maybe they should be told that police have a tendency to get angry and violent, especially when scared. I feel the police felt very threatened by everyone and so they attacked the passive for no real reason. They should probably be informed (especially when tensions are high) that there is no guarantee of their safety if they stand still and confront a line of police. Maybe small roving groups disrupting traffic everywhere in a city is a good way to confuse police and reduce incidents of arrest. Clearly even "freen speech zones" are now no longer safe places for protestors, after what happened in Toronto.
What Fifi says. And should we need to give a reason for banadana yanking, it's clear: you cover your face, we assume you're a cop.
I completely agree. Unless there's reason to think tear gas canisters are about to be fired, there's no cause to mask up. Now how to unmask people tactfully, I don't know.
The reason this whole debate makes me livid is that anyone who has protested for decades knows that marching peacefully with a sign will never change Harpers mind. Unionist knows it and so does everyone else who follows the global reach of this police state.
It isn't about changing Stephen Harper's mind. It would be nice, but it's an unlikely outcome. It's about changing the mind of John and Jane Q Public. If public opinion shifts, Stephen Harper has to shift with it if he wants to keep his job. When activists are viewed as criminals, even by association, it prevents that change of opinion from happening.
That anger's justified but channeling it into actions that don't accomplish much is surely a waste of effort.
Its bad enough that the police can say the "devil" made me do it. What makes it over the top is people here saying; "yeah stop making the police violent."
Why not let the police be violent of their own accord? Why give them an excuse?
Other than a couple of individuals on this board, it is virtually impossible to find anyone - in the street, in the workplace, on progressive websites - saying anything positive (or even "neutral") about the vandals and assholes whose actions were conveniently used as a pretext by the authorities for their fascist attacks.
It would be wonderful if the movement has turned this corner once and for all, as a result of this cathartic weekend. No more rejoicing over torching of banks and cars, over smashing of windows. Dare we hope that organizations will meet in advance and discuss all aspects of mobilization - including how to neutralize the assholes without the "help" of the police?
Other than a couple of individuals on this board, it is virtually impossible to find anyone - in the street, in the workplace, on progressive websites - saying anything positive (or even "neutral") about the vandals and assholes whose actions were conveniently used as a pretext by the authorities for their fascist attacks.
Bullshit. At the rally last night, one of the speakers said something about not letting the media trick us into to talking about "good protesters vs. bad protesters". 2500 people clapped and cheered. People who are actually here and actually give a shit get it. Why the fuck don't you. Let's please focus all energy on holding the police accountable. I'm so sick of this shit.
What was the name of that speaker, Cytizen? Were their remarks quoted on any site (progressive or otherwise)? I'd love to take your word for this, but give me a little more evidence to work with.
There are no "good protesters vs. bad protesters". There are only protesters. Then, there are police agents, provocateurs, and common vandals - very very few of them - who must be isolated and controlled so that our struggle can succeed. Either we crush the provocations, or the provocations will be used as a pretext to crush us. If you don't condemn the assholes, masses of people will (correctly) conclude that they speak and act for you.
This isn't rocket science.
And I strongly suggest that everyone call them "assholes" or similar terms of abuse. That way, the few real people tempted to join in the "fun" will be discouraged by peer pressure.
Recall how Morgentaler fought for women's right to choose: by opening illegal abortion clinics. For me, that's real diversity of tactics. When the anti-choicers blew up the abortion clinic on Harbord St in Toronto, they lost the argument and established themselves in the firmament of the lunatic fringe.
Smashing storefronts and tossing feces inside only convinces people you're full of shit, and blaming the media is what politicians do when they get on the wrong side of public opinion.
People going to work, seeing the smashed storefronts, will think, "Imagine how much damage there would have been if the police hadn't arrested 900 folks." It's that much harder holding the police accountable.
Yeah, the divide and conquer stratagem that you employ by using terms such as ‘assholes' and ‘vandals' is wearing a little thin Unionist.
When confronting power on its own terms, one has to expect that an array of deceptive tactics will be bought to bear to serve as the thin justification for brutality against citizens. Justification is still useful to power as a cover story for its corporate media propaganda. It isn't surprising then to witness ‘black block' agents setting to work among the crowds in parasitic fashion.
As much as I consider useless the act of directly and peacefully confronting the elite and their body guards through mass demonstrations, I also can't ignore the profound sense of solidarity that is felt with those who do so, and who feel there is meaning in it, despite the fact that I disagree with the tactic. I suppose there is a minute utility on some level with the docile voicing of objections in the vicinity of the deciding class, but when a moment's thought is given, it doesn't appear all that far removed from a metaphor, where the imagery is suggestive of livestock being funneled through openings in the corral fencing before the rendering house.
Instead, I imagine these occasions with legions of riot police standing around behind barricades, sweltering in the heat with their thumbs up their asses, doing nothing, no one bothering to add to the sense of power that they appropriate for themselves by confronting them on their terms, being provided with what they and their masters so richly deserve, which is the utter rejection of a society that turns its back on them once and for all in disgust. Meanwhile, a more tangible act of protest to mark the occasions might involve tens of thousands of protestors fanning out in large groups at multiple points around the metropolis, quickly emptying the big box retail outlets, organized smash and grabs if you will, and distributing the contents among the communities. That would frighten power far more than tens of thousands of sloganeers holding signs.
Yeah, the divide and conquer stratagem that you employ by using terms such as ‘assholes' and ‘vandals' is wearing a little thin Unionist.
I think that's an appropriate metaphor, SJ. The millions who are gathering strength to change this unjust world must divide off the adventurists and the provocateurs in order to conquer the real enemy.
Your disagreement with the "tactic" of mass demonstrations appears somewhat ahistorical to me. Not one momentous change - from the French Revolution to the defeat of U.S. aggression in South-East Asia to the overthrow of the Soviet-bloc regimes - has ever taken place in the absence of such mobilizations.
Conversely, never once have assholes and vandals triggered any positive social change. We dumb working people don't need cowardly arsonists and window-smashers and (ultimately) assassins to "wake us up". We know whose interests they serve. The only sad part about the assholes is that some of them don't even collect a cheque from those whose interests they serve.
Sineed, this is exactly what's being said in mainstream news sites. Fucking hell.
.................
Slumberjack, while sloganeers (thanks a lot) may not be effective, I don't think looting insured big-box stores is either.
If "effective" means "leads to social change" it can be very easy to slip into a sense of the problem is too big, etc.
I think what would be the better and rather impossible challenge is to have the protestors armed in an equivalent way to the police. It's not going to happen, but it would sure change the police's tactics. In the absence of that, we have our voices, our streets, and the way those of us with privilege use it on an every day basis to fuck shit up.
Well I don't know about that. I think if you were to ask among people who marched with the peaceful side of civil rights movement; you might be surprised to find a few who would give a nod to the Black Panther tactics as being useful to the overall endeavor.
The concept I've been trying to get across to you without much success it seems, involves an exercise in self-awareness to some extent, one which realizes that it isn't necessary to do the work of the power elite apparatus by seamlessly aligning with it in condemning measures that others feel is justified, last resort self defense.
The conditioning required to engage in collaboration without the slightest acknowledgement of what it is, forms part of the relentless multi-faceted campaign of control which is employed so effectively, involving direct police action, propaganda, beatings, arrests, planetary destruction, genocide, apathy, and last but certainly not least, pacifism in the face of it all to name a few. It's a comfortable arrangement of interests to be sure.
Fear is a useful tactic though Maysie. Right now they fear nothing and no one. Creativity is key no? ;)
Well I don't know about that. I think if you were to ask among people who marched with the peaceful side of civil rights movement; you might be surprised to find a few who would give a nod to the Black Panther tactics as being useful to the overall endeavor.
The Panthers were "useful" for far more than their tactics. They were a proud, public, militant, and mass-embedded movement, organizing self-defence of African American communities against the racist suppression by the police. They were no cowardly concealed vandals or assassins. They were, in fact, notoriously the targeted victims of such attacks by police.
Your example is an excellent one to distinguish mass struggle from police provocateurs and individual heroic adventurers. You have quite obviously missed my argument. I am no pacifist, nor do I espouse nonviolence except as a tactic (and maybe as a lofty distant goal in human evolution). When militant action is taken, it must be taken by masses of people, deciding and acting together. If individuals do so on their own, the same masses of people must suppress them - or, if that's not feasible, then clearly condemn and dissociate from them.
Sineed, this is exactly what's being said in mainstream news sites. Fucking hell.
Precisely my point. As I said before this past wkend, activists will lose the moral high ground if they support violent tactics. What happened is exactly what us pacifists said was going to happen.
I mean, look at it: either it's "agents provocateurs" or the mainstream media. People like me and unionist and adharden who have been consistently critical of violent tactics are being smeared with accusations of being divisive, or, like you just did, "mainstream." We are offering constructive criticism, so who is being divisive, REALLY?
Truth is, violence is an unsupportable position, so those who support it must necessarily resort to criticizing those who are against it because that's all they got.
Bottom line: violent tactics are a disastrously bad idea. This weekend proved it. People still in favour of it need to take their heads out of their asses already.
Here's another metaphor...army background and all you know. When the battle is in the trenches, to insist on occupying the moral high ground leaves one standing around in no persons land, trying to advance against hopeless odds.
I think what would be the better and rather impossible challenge is to have the protestors armed in an equivalent way to the police. It's not going to happen, but it would sure change the police's tactics. In the absence of that, we have our voices, our streets, and the way those of us with privilege use it on an every day basis to fuck shit up.
While it would certainly require much more organizational discipline than is currently practiced, I'm not sure it's necessarily impossible to have equivalently armed protesters. This was certainly the practice in the 1969 anti US-Japan Security Treaty/Anti-Vietnam War protests in Tokyo when universities were occupied and shut down for a year. I believe labor organizers in South Korea also to some extent practice these tactics.
Whether it would be an effective or productive tactic though is a wholly different question.
Now I understand Vimy Ridge.
Sineed this isn't about the moral high ground. Report after report indicates that the police left the 2 cop cars, strategically. Yeah, they should have been left alone, but when do cops do this, ever? And the police were simply vanished when the vandalism on Yonge Street began and allowed it to continue for 30+ minutes. Separate from agents provocateurs, the violent protesters walked right into the police's plans. And it worked. It's actually pushing it to even call what they did, "tactics". IMO.
$1 billion dollars is now justified. Orchestrated completely by the PTB. And people are believing it. That's what angers me.
I'm not in favour of violence such as what happened in my city on the weekend. Neither the state-condoned violence, bought and paid for, nor the (perhaps) less-organized sort. Interesting that we've all been distracted from the violence of the cops though. But I get that this thread is about the tactics on "our" side. Nobody who throws bricks is someone I would consider an ally.
SJ, is fear a tactic? Or is it a way to enforce compliance? If that's true, there are many more ways to strike fear into the hearts of corporations than smashing their stores and stealing. Cutting up one's credit card is one way.
Watch how fast change will happen if only 10% of the population does that.
It might work the first time around, if each protester had a rifle and bandolier slung across their shoulder, in convincing the police to adopt a more polite demeanor with the general public. The next time though, the army would be manning the barricades.
It wouldn't happen here of course, because we tend to leave that sort of thing to the 'third' world. We're quite willing to cheer them on in their struggles though, while simultaneously counseling the less intense, apparently more civilized bended knee approach for ourselves.
SJ, when I saw the video of protesters turning their backs on the riot police and sitting down, I thought, who the hell does that, except someone secure in their privilege of the sanctity of their physical dignity? Or, ingrained with "trust" that the police won't hurt them. The results weren't pretty.
It might work the first time around, if each protester had a rifle and bandolier slung across their shoulder, in convincing the police to adopt a more polite demeanor with the general public. The next time though, the army would be manning the barricades.
The image in my head was more construction hard hats and steel trash bin shields. Nonetheless, you're probably right about what the likely state response would be.
There's a scene in one of Ogawa Shinsuke's documentary series about the farmers' protests against the building of Narita International Airport outside of Tokyo from the 1970s when the farmers and their student allies debate whether to arm themselves for the next days picket lines. It's certainly an interesting glimpse into the thinking that went behind their protest actions at the time.
Sineed - violence in self-defence - violence supported by the masses - is not only justified, it is inevitable. Hence, WWII. Hence, Vietnam. Hence, Afghanistan.
The distinction is not whether people get hurt or not, either. It is what stage the struggle is at, and whether the tactics are decided and accepted by the movement. Maysie's comment about having the "protestors armed in an equivalent way to the police" is so far from the point, I just shook my head. The people of Vietnam (for just one of countless examples) were never "armed in an equivalent way". They prevailed. The insurgency in Afghanistan is armed with some pathetic firearms and home-made explosive devices. But, as in the countless other cases, they enjoy vast popular support. That's why they will prevail.
Turning the other cheek in the face of systemic violence is no virtue. It can be, at best, a conjunctural tactic. Even if, by some turn of fate, the people remove their enemies from their thrones by nonviolent means, they will need to prepare to defend that victory against violent reprisals. That's why I disagree, philosophically, with adharden. But today, I disagree even more immediately and urgently with Slumberjack. The individual arsonists and vandals must be condemned - suppressed - as a small parenthesis to our larger struggle. And we must be the ones to do it, if they don't get the message themselves through their rather dense skulls.
Hi babblers, although u may not know me- i feel like i kno most of you (in that anonymous online way anyways) i have read the forums the last 3 years- but after what happened in the tdot this weekend and closely following the board i feel i need to post in response to a long-time babbler.
Unionist- there are actually a lot of people in support of the activists in black: several in the mainstream. Naomi Klein was on democracynow.org yesterday defending their actions, and providing a context in which this sort of actvism exists.
as many of u may or may not kno (as i did not)canada has had (roll eyes) substantial hockey riots in the past where more cop cars were destroyed/burnt/flipped.
I personally feel ill that the left would not be in solidarity with ALL of the protesters not just those working within the social justice mainstream. My sympathies are anarchist(indigenist/post left/ communist), and i have difficulty with a parliamentary system led by social democrats; however when social democrats, socialists, communists, marxists, social justice people speak and march i tend to listen and realise how rich and diverse the left is- rather be divisive in the face of mainstream media.
If we dont have solidarity for eachother- how can we expect to change the public perception?
Just as an Add- i have also heard many people discuss how the police implemented their "baiting" tactics- so to blame the activists for causing destruction on police "property" when it is clear to anyone paying attention that this was clearly what "they" wanted... The left to divide and the "black bloc' to become the new terrorists...
oh i just wanted to add another little blip- While i am in solidarity with a diversity of tactics- i do not condone the destruction of the police cars, they were a PERFECT camera op if u read the star or the globe and mail u will see what i mean, you couldn't have "planned' photojournalism that great (lol).
However, i do believe that breaking windows adjoining corporate property is non-violen;t particularly in context to the destruction and violence corporations do in the world to all persons but particularly those vunerable to abuse and exploitation. We are all exploited and oppressed- some just choose to acknowledge that fact. and some choose to take it a step further.
We cannot forgot that the only people that were hurt in the protest were protesters, there were no fatalities no police casualties. The vids i saw of the sat arrests sickened me. I was @ the solidarity march outside of don jail were many more arrested in a brutal fashion.
Compare this to any day in afghanistan and iraq where state and corporate mechanisms are at work, causing death AND property destruction every single day.
Hi, st_zed - warm welcome to babble (that is, to a speaking role)! If you've been reading for 3 years, you may have noticed that I occasionally exaggerate in order to make my point. It's my working-class upbringing, I'm afraid...
Unionist- there are actually a lot of people in support of the activists in black: several in the mainstream.
I'm a big believer in precision. I have absolutely nothing against anarchists nor against people who dress in black. My comments are directed against the assholes that torch banks and cop cars and smash windows of businesses, then run away and hide. Are those the ones you say "a lot of people" support? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because I haven't met one single solitary non-cyber-person that has said, "Good for them!"
Not that I don't believe you, but having just met you, I'll need a quote and/or a link so that I can judge your rather astonishing statement for myself.
Yeah, and I have more respect for crowds that do that than masked heroes. Not much more, mind you - but more. The crowds usually aren't trying to invite repression.
What if some of the "protesters" pulled out guns and started shooting cops? Would the absence of solidarity still make you ill? Or do you get to draw the line as to what forms of individual heroics are acceptable? Just askin'.
I personally never give a damn what someone's "sympathies" are. I judge them by their words and deeds, and whether they act with the movement or not. If you think the "movement" only consists of "the left", then we will never win. We will need people marching and acting together who would never dream of attaching all those little sectarian labels to themselves that you have just listed. Come check out my fellow workers sometime. When action happens, they're all together. Ask them how they vote or what they thing of socialism and revolution and anarchism. You will be rudely surprised.
I'll take my "right-wing" workers over the asshole arsonists any day of the week, month, or year - because they will change this world.
What was the name of that speaker, Cytizen? Were their remarks quoted on any site (progressive or otherwise)? I'd love to take your word for this, but give me a little more evidence to work with.
I'd like to know this too.
I'm hearing it a lot. Imagine how much damage would have happened if the police wasn't here?!
Word is store owners have to pay for the damage themselves. The federal government MIGHT step in (But now that the big spending spree is over probably not).
Some people here have made comments like big deal, it's just some broken windows. Okay so how about you drop a cheque for a thousand bucks to get someones windows put back in. It wasn't just "evil big name corporate symbolic stores" that were smashed.
We're of the opinion that we have time on our side, and that our immediate circumstances [I mean ‘our' in the sense that we enjoy, no matter what occurs around us, a measure of safety and security that is denied to others on a daily basis] are such as to not warrant a more aggressive posture.
We consider ourselves in solidarity with the oppressed around the world and domestically, yet we define the respective variations of self defense through our own methodology. What is well and good enough for ‘others' as they determine is to be avoided by us.
Solidarity exists so long as the complacency and normalcy that we've come to depend upon for ourselves remains undisturbed. Somehow, everyone must sign on to what we define as legitimate in order to be considered, even in circumstances of knowing full well the level of mainstream conditioning that exists in this society, to an extend where we witness the occasional outburst in protest, followed by an equally rapid return to the accustomed state of lethargy that has been prepared for us. And if somehow the oppressed gain a measure of victory through the very means we look down upon, we stand ready to reap the benefit after stepping past their bodies.
We do not fully realize of course the similarities that should unite us all against a common global system that inflicts its misery everywhere, because after all, we're among the privileged few, which lends toward the notion of feeling that we have the time to be patient, while others are being crushed, poisoned, and suffocated.
I have no intention of letting this go until you either substantiate it - or withdraw it. Who said this, and what did they say? Why should we allow throwaway comments like yours to become urban legend?
I believe violence begets violence. Violent tactics by the BB goons will just bring more police repression.
More for us indeed Boom Boom. We're not used to that.
I have no intention of letting this go until you either substantiate it - or withdraw it. Who said this, and what did they say? Why should we allow throwaway comments like yours to become urban legend?
FUCK YOU UNIONIST YOU FUCK!!!! WHy don't you spend 20 hours in a fucking cage, get beat up by cops and listen to the media and supposed fucking allies trash your friends and family and then go fucking search out the name of someone who spoke in front of 2500 people. Fuck you. Look at the speakers list. it was one of those people.
Unionist- there are actually a lot of people in support of the activists in black: several in the mainstream. Naomi Klein was on democracynow.org yesterday defending their actions, and providing a context in which this sort of actvism exists.
So, st_zed, just for everyone's information, here is the video clip. The interview with Naomi Klein begins at 23:00. There is also a few seconds at the very end where she returns to the same issue.
NOT ONCE does she mention the "activists in black". NOT ONCE does she "defend their actions".
How about listening to it again, and then get back to us. Urban legend is a dangerous thing. Facts are vital for those who wish to change the world.
Hi Unionist, Thank you for your reply. I won't pretend that i wasn't slightly worried- as I know how heated babblers can get. But i do appreciate your welcome. Here is the link to democracynow =
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/28/naomi_klein_the_real_crime_scene
I do agree with you on many topics- I am not suggesting the "movement" or "change" will only come from the left- I believe many so-called right wing workers among many others- MUST be included in any and every discussion, I am about inclusion not division. I appreciate your feelings on labels or political identities- i felt it was nessacery to identify myself ( a product of my post-modern post- secondary education obviously) so babblers could have some context b/c i had never posted before. I adore ( get ready for it) noam chomsky- and his anarcho-syndicalist sensibilities have influenced me immensley. I will admit that my own understanding of labour history is not a level it should be - but of course i recognise (how could i not?) the immense contributions of labour and working peoples in democratic movements. Don't they form the majority of our society? I believe people who catagorise themselves on the right and are of a particular socio-economic background (whatever that means) do so in response to mainstream education and media. For me personally, the right is pro-business anti-labour. This is not to invalidate their talkior ng points or diminish their capacities - most people in my view are quite brainwashed by capitalist/neo-capitalist forces...may not be a marxist but I strongly concur with his his analysis- just not his outcome. I am not saying I condone the boys in black " " ; but i do not like it that progessives of any shade should attack people that they instead should hold solidarity with. I feel "SICKENED" by the g20- and all that entails- (i know so ambiguous...) but i am tired of BEING told we live in a democracy and never seeing these so-called liberal humanist democratic values enacted. i am pro-democracy and simply put - Democracy should governing principles decided for and OF the people in a consensus or grassroots way. It should bring all sorts of people to the table. I am disapointed i guess in general by the whole spectacle- and it adds to my feelings of unease of our current society I I don't know if this was a even and/or adequate response to some of your points? but I hope we can continue the discssion soon.
The BB goons are nothing but a sideshow, but unfortunately a sideshow that brings increased police repression.
No wonder the level of anxiety being expressed though, there you go again with inconvenient facts and footage.
I have no intention of letting this go until you either substantiate it - or withdraw it. Who said this, and what did they say? Why should we allow throwaway comments like yours to become urban legend?
Having been there, I wouldnt be able to tell you what anyone said with conviction, since the sound was crap and the only time I could for sure know what someone was saying was when they started a chant, since then I could hear everyone else repeating it.
Here's one heck of a tactic worth debating: Police admit deliberately misleading public on expanded security fence law
Hi Unionist, Thank you for your reply. I won't pretend that i wasn't slightly worried- as I know how heated babblers can get. But i do appreciate your welcome. Here is the link to democracynow =
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/28/naomi_klein_the_real_crime_scene
St_zed, I've read your comments, and I think we are remarkably in agreement on the basic ills of our society and the tasks facing the movement.
I just want, though, to emphasize how important facts are. We must have crossposted, because I linked to Naomi's interview just before you did. I watched/listened to the whole thing. She never mentioned the people in black - not once, unless I was seriously mistaken - and she certainly never once defended any burning of cars or smashing of shop windows. Not once. So please listen again, think over what you said, and let me know if we're still in disagreement on this point.
Let me put it differently. I know Naomi Klein. I know her work. I cannot imagine her defending these characters or their actions. I can certainly imagine her saying that the "real crime" took place among the G-20 leaders. I share that conviction entirely. But no one defends the assholes - no one I've seen, anyway - except anonymously in cyberspace.
The BB goons are nothing but a sideshow, but unfortunately a sideshow that brings increased police repression.
I agree it was a spectacle and perhaps calculatedly so.
Unionist- She didn't say "anarchists in black" she called them " young activists" and refers to them as very "angry" she in no way marginalises them or criminalises them- This is what i meant by "defend" i am sorry that i inarticulated my point. Her article in globe and mail yesterday antagonistically derided the "real crooks of the g20 nations" as the leaders. I felt this comparison amounted to defense. I do not condone what they did. I, along with NK, do not condemn them.
Here's one heck of a tactic worth debating: Police admit deliberately misleading public on expanded security fence law
Here's what I posted on Friday, although I didn't get a very sympathetic reception:
Um, folks, this is much ado about nothing. As the cops said, this law already existed - in fact, cops have had these powers for 20 years, at least, for anyone "entering or attempting to enter" "any provincial and any municipal public building"! All they did now was expand these powers to the G20 security fence.
There are no new powers - only the addition of that area.
The law is extremely draconian - reverse onus, the whole nine yards - but it's already there. Come to think of it, who was in power in Ontario in 1990?
So, who "leaked" this big story and created a big ruckus? IMHO, it's the security forces themselves. On one hand, they can help stoke their crisis atmosphere. On the other hand, they can plead that they have done nothing which isn't already in the legislation.
And most importantly, they must be counting on the mere announcement (and the predictable reaction of some) to keep fence-sitters (sorry) away from the fence.
Here's the 1990 Act, for your reference.
Emphasis added.
LOL to the continuous cross-posts.
The BB goons also lend themselves to easy infiltration and manipulation by the police - right? I think there were links posted last night showing possible (likely?) police officers disguised as BB goons and causing mayhem. It looks to me like the end result of BB goon involvement in the G20 protests was to bring some (not sure how much) sympathy for police action.
We're of the opinion that we have time on our side, and that our immediate circumstances [I mean ‘our' in the sense that we enjoy, no matter what occurs around us, a measure of safety and security that is denied to others on a daily basis] are such as to not warrant a more aggressive posture.
Slumberjack, I won't put words in anyone else's mouth, but I don't think that's what people who argue in favour of organizing and solidarity believe about our current circumstances.
You can believe, as I do, that things here and now are really pretty awful for a lot of people and getting worse, and further that whatever comforts we have are bought at the expense of more seriously oppressed peoples elsewhere, and still recognize that some actions here and now have not been earned and are going to be counterproductive.
One way of knowing the tide had turned would be to see a million, two million Torontonians spontaneously assembled in Nathan Phillips Square -- but you and I both know that that is not going to happen soon, eh?
If Unionist is saying that we don't have a movement strong enough yet to pretend that we are starting a revolution, then I agree with him, and that's not because I'm flattering myself that we have time on our side. (I sure don't have time on my side.) Or that our comforts are too valuable to mess up if it were really possible to bring about fundamental change. It just means that I learned years ago that "Revolution if you want it!" doesn't work, isn't the way revolutions work, and is often more an expression of frustrated ego than serious commitment to change for everyone.
Unionist- I reread the transcript- you are right- I have her article and the broadcast all mixed up in my head- On the same hour amy goodman had a story submitted by Vcity- Media coop and I may be conflating the three things.... But i do stand by saying that she doesnt condemn or accuse them- in fact she rightly polarises the police and the g20 as the "bad guys." which i believe they are.
Just read what skdadl wrote- and in the spirit of that I agree- That the greatest solidarity movement would be to see MILLIONS (if not hundreds of thousands) kanadians / indigenous persons/ union members/ students / poor/ working people/ women/ glbtq/ basically everyone who hopes for democracy have a sit in on yonge street.
If the trade union movement had been willing to use its collective power anytime in the last fifteen years Canada would not be on the precipice of a police state. Instead the mantra has been the same in every attempt at building grass roots unity. The Union leadership rightly insists it only has a mandate from the people who pay union dues to protect their own contracts. That is the priority not social change and I have heard that from the mouths of the BC Fed Pres and various leaders of the largest unions in this province.
Unionist your fucking train left the station in BC in the 1980's when the CLC and BC Fed sold out the Solidarity Coalition. In BC while Campbell has been in full attack mode against the poor in this province for almost a decade the trade unions say just wait the government will defeat itself. At the same time they insist that their members can't take on the fight shoulder to shoulder with other trade unionists becasue that would be a misuse of members funds. HEU goes to the wall and they find themselves alone and they got beat up. The Ferryworkers went to the wall against cutbacks to their agreements and the trade union leadership sold them down the river to a Ready made yellow dog contract.
When unions don't even stand with other trade unionist under attack what doe that mean? In Canada our unions have taken the old slogan "An Injury to One is An Injury to All" and changed it to read "An Injury to One is a Lesson to Be Learned From - Keep Your Head Down and Your Ass up"
Our once proud unions have abandoned our youth in favour of protecting the boomers pensions and benefits. But go ahead tell those youth in the street that the unions make them strong. There is business unionism in Canada not trade unionism and the union leadership is used to telling working people what is good for them. It seems that what is good for others is protecting the gains of the few from the global fire storm our cooperate leaders have unleashed on the population.
Go ahead tell those young people that the unions are their salvation and that you only have the moral authority to decide how the power of the state should be confronted. After all look at all the success in the last 15 years by unions in this country.
Freedom 55, spare me the arrogance. If you disagree, fine, but spare me the cute little rant about my presumed privilege. You know dick about me, so quit commenting on me. " And I have to tell you, this whole unmasking idea reeks of privilege. You can make all the assumptions you want about why someone would choose to mask up, and your assumptions may even be correct most of the time. But the fact is, you don't know why that person wants to conceal her/his identity. You don't need to wear a mask because you have nothing to hide? Well, bully for you! You can take your privilege and shove it!"
I have met enough extremely marginalised people, unmasked, in deeply dangerous situation, that I have come to believe there is absolutely zero moral or practical justification for covering your face in the midst of a peaceful protest. None. Zip. I have marched at numerous Canadian protests with people from the global South, people who receive death threats as part of their day to day work. They look around at what our protests have become, point to the people with the masks, and say "why are they doing that? What are they trying to achieve?" If you don't want to listen to me, try listening to people who are well and truly marginalised, to the point of death threats, rape, and more, and hear what they have to say.Green Grouch. Check out my earlier sentiment towards Unionist. Apply to yourself. Police have been raiding houses and arresting innocents all week. They profile and harass and intimidate. They have threatened people's status. Of course there are reasons to hide from the fascist pigfuckers we had out on our streets this week. WHy not fucking think about what you're saying before you say it.
This is the same type of mantra which for decades has been channeling leftist activism as we've come to know it into the dead end zones, where a few crumbs from the establishment is enough to be heralded as an occasion to whitewash slightly adjusted deck chairs. I mean, just take a good look in this and the firebombing threads to see the affliction and resignation. Apparently nothing is supposed to move until the green light committee makes up its mind at its leisure.
No matter though, once the misplaced responsibility is understood as a futile assumption involving a critique of this society, with the view of tweaking a few of its malfunctioning elements, in order to rescue what should be left for dead before we are as a species.
As for the people in this discussion who seem able to engage in a conversation without name calling, calling down, and personalising: thank you. It's the only way we'll ever be able to have this debate. And we sure as hell need to have it in the worst way.
I'd love to hear some comments on messaging. Our messages are key parts of our tactics and it's one element we can own on our own terms, without reacting to the security apparatus.Bluntly, I feel we have been failing miserably at that, whether in street protests or through the big NGOs.
I struggled this past weekend because I felt the illegimate, beyond disgusting spectacle of these barricaded G20 meetings needed to take a global view, not just a local one--- important as the latter is, we also are conencted globally and our nation is one of the worst offenders on the global scene. I felt we needed to protest because-- for example-- of the millions of sisters and brothers dying of AIDS without basic sanitation and without basic, increasingly cheap AR meds that have been repeatedly promised by the wealthy, thieving nations and their corporations, only to have that funding dry up and blow away as soon as the cameras are turned off. The G20 was here, imposed by a nasty and vindictive little "leader", so the least i could do was show up and try to use my body and voice to ask questions for those prevented from being here with us. I didn't feel any of us managed to do that well, beyond a few cleverly-worded homemade signs that succeeded where all the big NGOs and all the non profit $$ failed.
Perhaps I am still just too mad and sad to take a good view on this, so I would like to hear others' thoughts if you feel messaging is a relevant tactic to discuss.
Any reason you can't control your anger, Cytizen H? Some people on this board seem to have a steaming hissy fit and go on a personal rant as soon as someone dares disagree with them. And we wonder why we can't get anywhere.
Yes, darling, I did read the posts. And I am disagreeing. Shocking! You and I seem to know different individuals who have "illegal" status or are otherwise marginalised or at-risk, and those individuals are coming to opposite conclusions. I am expressing my view and you are expressing yours. End of story.
The black bloc tactic has had it's day I'm afraid. When it started it worked but now that the tactic is being used against them by infiltration and of which we have seen the results of , it should be considered dead.
The solution is too demask and possibly sling shot the heads of masked people with marbles. At least the infiltarator will be identified by the big bump on their head. There is no question that violence wins all the time for news coverage.
What we have here is a government that has allowed constitutional rights to be trampled on...so unless people get serious and start kicking out the conservative/ liberal and getting off there butts and voting them out and the young people get their heads out of the bongs everything will stay the same
Cytizen H, your reaction to Unionist (#79) and GG (#97) is utterly unacceptable. They are perfectly within their rights to hold your words to account. Equally, you are within your rights to refuse. You cannot respond with those kind of personal attacks, however. I'm sorry about what you've been through these past few days but if you can't control yourself, you'll be taking some time off.
That said, closing for length. Please feel free to start another thread.