Rumours about the Black Bloc

for those who don't know, by "snitching" i specifically mean that a few individual members of rabble.ca submitted photos and video footage to the cops which show people vandalizing property, in some cases they were unmasked in photos. please don't condemn all rabble.ca members, or rabble.ca as a whole, for the actions of a few misguided people. (i won't name names on the internet, but i expect word will get out soon enough.)

in trying to make sense of all this, i can only imagine that those involved felt they were doing the right thing, felt that the black bloc is such a detriment to the movement that they should be purged even if it requires such drastic actions as these. as wrong as i think they are for betraying our allies and collaborating with the cops, i have no hatred towards them. i'm just very sad that they would do this. i hope they see how wrong they were.

The 'black bloc' are not activists  "struggling against oppression and for a better world"  as far as I'm concerned - they're trouble makers there only to cause vandalism for the thrill of it. They're also a sideshow, diverting the media from the real issues.  And, worse,  they're easily infiltrated by the police who in turn can use them to make the group look even worse than they are, and, by implication, the real social activists involved in peaceful protest. 

I'm not sure how you know this is true, you're being very vague about it - However, if someone who happens to babble did provide information on vandals, GOOD! 

What's that saying?  If you can't do the time, don't do the crime?

I would have thought they (Black Bloc) would have looked forward to being arrested for their "propaganda by deed" because of the opportunity they would have to explain themselves while in the dock. I have been re-reading my Goldman and Kropotkin on exactly that topic... and their defence of "propoganda by deed" is precisely the opportunity to be heard and expound on their postion from the dock.

Or perhaps they (Black Bloc again) consider Bakunin to be more of their role model... of course this leads to two other questions, !) who is playing the role of Sergei Nechayev and 2) are the Bloc types having any more luck impressing their audience than Bakunin did?

Hence Jaggi Singh surrendered to the police.

harm, if I saw you vandalizing my property I won't only turn you in, I will also make sure that you pay for all damages.

This will be the end of my contribution to this ridiculous thread, started by yet another new ID.

Yes, harm_on_e, I am an employee of rabble and I can say that you are indeed mistaken on both counts. The word "pig" as a pejorative referring to cops has been banned from thread titles only. It has not been banned "from the forums" as you assert. As for your first assertion, I have a pretty good idea who your source is, and that source is either misinformed or lying.

Still would like to know who has been cast in the role of Nechayev...

hi again catchfire. regarding the "pig" thing, i corrected myself and acknowledged that it was banned just on thread titles, not within the bodies, in my post at 7:42pm. but it was banned (in titles) for the reason i mentioned, which is that the term is seen as anti-labour.

as for my other assertion, you know what, i acknowledge that i could be wrong about this. if i am wrong, i truly and deeply apologize, because i would not want anyone to get a bad-rep for something they didn't do (which is why i mentioned no names, stressed that very few people were involved, and urged people not to condemn all rabble members or rabble as a whole). anyways, i actually DO hope i am wrong about this, because i would be less disappointed and pessimistic about the toronto left... although, seeing the reactions of some people on this thread http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/expose-vandels , i'm still pretty disappointed/pessimistic.

That is the question the pigs are asking.

i think you have a one-dimensional and stereotyped view of the black bloc. i'm sure there are a few individuals who are as you describe, just as there are non-blackbloc activists who are only in it to be cool, or to build their career as a politician or journalist or whatever. (there will always be a few people with selfish motives in any group.) but there are many more who deeply care about making a better world. they just happen to have a different opinion about what tactics and/or strategy to use to achieve that world. as i said, i don't have black bloc friends, but i have met/conversed with individuals who claim to have been involved, and they seem extremely sincere. many of them are also involved in the unglamorous, unthrilling, day to day organizing in various struggles. if you are involved in this type of activism, you have probably worked alongside black bloc individuals (they just weren't dressed as black bloc at the time and are not about to out themselves!). these are our allies. most days out of the year, they are not smashing windows, they are working beside us.

My grandma did, so that you would be free to vote. You have a problem with that?

So rather than complain about a few anonymous posters in a thread where multiple and diverse opinions are expressed, you have decided instead to launch vague and unsubstantiated accusations at "certain members" of rabble staff (thereby tarring them all with the same brush) of snitching and collaborating with agents of the state; and then you have the gall to hide behind pale claims of "I hope I'm wrong" and "If I am I deeply apologize"? Which part of that strategy is that of an ally?

Fuck consequences, eh? J'accuse!

Pigs attack Suffragettes

regarding the "tarring them all with the same brush" thing, you make a good point. i don't want this to happen. look, please don't jump to conclusions about me. i mean no ill-will towards anyone. to show i'm in good faith, i give you my full consent to delete this thread. (or maybe i can do it myself... i'm a new member, and don't know how to operate things... i'll check it out.)

i checked at the top for a delete link and can't find one. i have to go now (i need to be at a friend's house at 9pm, lives down the street). you can post instructions on how to delete, or delete it yourself. sorry for the trouble. but i am pretty confident that you will soon learn that i am right about this. 

am 100% with you on this comment and your positioning!

feel slightly  sick in th eback of my throat

Your #1 - your "reliable source" should be careful.  In some circumstances, saying such things is called "slander".  S/He might want to avoid making accusatory gossip a habit.

#2 - We have a criminal code for good reason.  I suggest that you stop playing silly buggers with us and do some rethinking of your own.

Actually, I find it disquieting that any jerk can pop in these days and derail threads, forums, and even some long-time babblers, before flouncing. I still believe that humour, together with the judicious use of offensive words and insults, is the best way of dealing with them.

Rather, I think that if you looked a news coverage of the day, there would be very little clear details about the demands of those engaging in civil disobedience of whatever type. Food rioters would be called common bandits, suffragettes, irrilegious women, most likely. I think you are being a little gullible here, taking the media read at face value.

As some people have noted above, even the CBC has stopped making a clear distinction between the BB and other protestors, lumping them all in the same category. With reporting like that, how exactly do you expect to find clarity, especially in the context of a multi-dimensional protest coming from a variety of sectors aimed at the G20.

Mind you, I would personally prefer more clarity of purpose and expression around some clearly defined principles, but this is not where people are at, at this time. Still, I don't think there has been any serious attempt by the mainstream media to faithfully represent the BB view, aside from parroting the general view expressed by chief Blair and the rest of the establishment.

...said the pot.

why the hell not? Unionist is allowed to do so with impunity.

and he doesn't even have the integrity to offer this much.

it's become quite apparent in the several months i've been active on this board that different standard apply to different babblers.

LOL... exactly what I asked of him.

Of cousre most lefties don't get it. People smash windows because they are frustrated. They burn police cars because they are frustrated.

Their actions do not communicate properly, but they do communicate.

These people know that something is wrong but don't know what it is exactly. It's reactionary and coarse.

Obviously a well reasoned response to the short comings of your environment would be best. But that will never happen in my life time.

As for the destruction of property, nobody owns anything. The only reason you think you own something is because you believe in the myth of capitalist ownership.

AT best, you are in possession and/or control of an object. What gives you the power to think you are in ownership of an object? The structures the bourgeoisie have set up . Those being; a Government, a Judicial system and various police agencies to enforce their capitalist ownership laws. Also the philisophical ideology of Capitalism.

PS  I realize that this is an insecure sight and that I have just outed myself in more ways than one.  But I have been so detached from anything political for so long now and have no desire to reinvolve myself to any former capacity I once held as an activist, and I no longer know anyone who is involved in anything,  I feel safe enough to speak.

One of the challenges (and opportunities) for protests against spectacles like the G8/G20, is that they encompass a thousand different issues. In that respect, I don't think that the shopping list approach of demands at the labour/community rally were all that different from the BBers demands - a broad call for a better world with many, many specific issues. They're both (worthy) shopping lists but they're not focused campaigns with one major demand - e.g. - right to vote, land claim settlement, refuse the cruise missile, public inquiry, etc. So if by the very nature of summitry we don't have a "actionable", focused demands, what are we trying to accomplish? I would suggest the following as part of the objectives:

1) Mass mobilization of people from every sector to protest together as one - power in numbers. 

2) Networking for the future.

3) Winning public support for the issues related to corporatization of the world. 

I would bet that if a rabble member sent pics of black bloc activists doing a dirty deed, they probably know that the police thugs aren’t going to do squat. For the simple reason that the police did it.

 While they may come on tv saying they are looking into it etc. I think we all know the criminals are right in their own backyards. So a babbler sending a pic is pretty well saying.”Go ahead arrest the bastard. I dare you”- It aint going to happen.

In the real world a pic is a thousand words and they will make an arrest…..in the world of covert operations a pic simply means a new assignment , probably at a desk for a while.

Now people coming on babble saying traitor simply looks like a tactic the police would use to create dissention within the ranks so to speak. I wouldn’t be surprised if that is happening in their ball park also…because of all the obvious setups that took place.

Regarding the word pig…a better description would be “paid to be animals” , because that’s what they are paid to become. Don’t believe me -  look at the demonstration footage. Yep they don’t call them pigs for nothing. Very thin line between cop and criminal ..once it’s crossed , they become pig  P.olice  I.n  G.audiness……

I found it totally repulsive that they would use a horse to trample someone who’s back was turned..very cowardly and animalistic. What people fail to realise is this isn’t a bottom rung action ..this type of behaviour stems from the top..the highest possible places and trickles down to the street level.

Seriously we have a PM that could be a war criminal torturer and most likely is and is in the process of covering it up…you don’t think this behaviour is trickling down?

Excuse me. Hiding behind masks and breaking a few windows isn't my idea of showing a 'backbone'.  I don't see how other leftists are under any obligation to support unilateral actions by others, especially if they are the ones facing the brunt of the reaction.   I also see no evidence that this so-called 'militant action', draws any more attention to the issue than peaceful gatherings.  The coverage they get seems to be more about the numbers that show up than anything, although the mindless vandalism did make it easy for the mass media to draw attention away from what was being protested and paint the entire movement in a negative light.

You misread the point. The point was that the rest of the left should so some backbone, as opposed freaking out at the first sign off serious political oppression by the police force, and doing such stupid and inexplicable things such as preventing First Nations people from calling cops who act in overtly racist manner nasty names. It really shows what side of the line organization such as Rabble.ca are.

There isn't any need to suddenly become "holier than the pope" by cracking down on discourse of the opressed and helping the police track down the BB.

Indeed, however much you disagree with the BB (which I do by the way) the worst thing anyone can do is play into the hands of the right by dividing the left. Now is the time to stand up and be counted. Sure the editors of Rabble think they are protecting themselves, but nothing could be further from the truth.

If you give them an inch they will take a mile. All this recrimination, and counter-recrimination is doing nothing at all to help anyone.

At the end of the day, nothing done by the BB (whoever they are) justified the crack down on other protestors, and that is the only thing that is important at this point. The BB are responsible only for themselves.

Don't worry Erik, I'm not suggesting that you need to put on a mask and break windows to show backbone.  Showing backbone means NOT CONDEMNING the more militant actions of others.  NOT CONDEMNING does not mean you have to condone these types of militant activities.  It just means NOT CONDEMNING. 

Perhaps people could be thinkng of creative ways of using these more militant actions in their favour, without necessarily condoning them.  Like, I don't know.  Maybe saying that "this is what happens when people aren't listened to, or this is what happens when you create a police state, or things are only going to get worse if you don't listen to us".  There's lots of room for creativity here.

I also agree with you that this type of action doesn't draw any more attention to the issue than peaceful gatherings. Which, by the way, also do not bring anymore attention to the issues.

Don't worry too much about the coverage that you get from the capitalist media.  Between them and the state, they won the PR battle long ago and successfully criminalized all protesters in the eyes of the public weeks before the summits happened.  Even if the "mindless vandalism" didn't happen, the police would have attacked and public opinion would still be in their favour and the capitalist media would still be fixated on the behaviour of the protesters and not what they are protesting. 

Don't worry too much about public opinion polls either.  Opinions mean nothing unless backed by demonstrative action.  Frankly, most Canadians are content to sit at home and watch TV, happily ignoring any nonviolent protests and complaining about them if they turn violent.  But, most canadians simply will never join any protest movement, no matter how peaceful.  Whenever I hear the average jo schmo complaining about violent protesters, i suggest that they get out and make an example of how it should be done.  All I get is blank stares as a response.

Anyways, if the Left in canada can't even stomach a measly little half riot with comparitively minor property damage at a point in history when we need to fight and win some serious battles; then forget it.

Sorry for the cynicism Erik, but this type of debate is partially why I dropped out of political activism a number of years ago.

So of course, in the name of assauging "public opinion" and in opposition to the "corporate media" your only real contribution is to parrot the condemnation of the "corporate media", and claim you are doing it from a "left wing" perspective. Good job. Now of course you could talk about the police crack down, and ignore the corporate media`s attempt to distract attention away from the real issues by talking about the BB all the time, but why do that when it is so much easier to do what they do, which is talk about the BB all the time.

I imagine you perspective would be different were it Tibetan`s smashing the windows of Chinese owned shops and getting into street battles with the police. Oh yeah! It was. Indeed, you spent no time at all attacking violent protesters and blaming them for the Chinese state police crack down. In fact, you supported the violent protesters, against the Chinese state, including their attacks against privately owned Chinese businesses.

What is the common thread of your opposition to the "corporate media"; repeating what they say. In China, civil strife is the fault of the oppressive state, in Canada it is protestors. Can you ever not come up with reasons to agree with the "corporate media" you say you are opposed to?

Once again you are ignoring what what I and others here have been saying for the past two weeks, reframing the issue into why "we" care more about broken windows than our suppose allies.  I'd say good job too but its becoming too obvious.   Simply put, I do not consider them allies.  Allies by definition are working towards the same goals and hopefully doing so in a way that advances rather than detracts from the cause.  Allies should also be trusted not to allow themselves to get infiltrated by the enemy so easily and so consistently.   If you think the general public is too dim witted or lazy or 'brainwashed' to support the left regardless of what "we" do then you might as well give up now because I can tell you that busting a few windows only strengthens the cops hand, not weakens it.  Don't blame me for that. 

I'm amazed you have the chutzpah to even mention that sorry episode in rabble history.  Unlike those who insist that they alone speak for "the left" I have been completely consistent in my criticism of imperialism.  In case you haven't noticed yet, China is the biggest trading partner of our corporate regime -hell they practically Own our entire industrial sector now-- and one of the main reasons why what's left of our working class can't get a raise. 

And once again there are degrees of oppression, to recognise that fact doesn't mean that we support any of it.

And to keep it in focus, What led to the abuse of authority?  And violation of civil liberties?  A few broken windows and cop cars?

O woe is Kanada.

Our home and stolen land.

True white love, in patriarchal command.

With soulless hearts we see thee fall.

And stolen from the Cree.

From oil and tide.

O Kanada, we stand on guard for whitee.

God keep our land, white and immigrant free.

O Kanada, we stand on guard for whitee.

O Kanada, we stand on guard for whitee.

So have you paid the rent yet white man, or are you ready to move to a villa in Tuscany?    Thats ok, that struggle too will take time.

I'm ready to do whatever mother earth tells me. 

So, in the grand scheme, given that you believe somehow that the Tibetan`s are in worse shape, and therefore are justified in a "few riots", there should be some sliding scale of vandalism allowed, pro-rated against the "degree of oppression". Perhaps you can provide us with a chart and call it "Redburns Oppression to Vandalism Matrix", and quantify the precise amount of property damage that is allowed measure by each unlawful detention.

By the same token, I suppose there is a limit to how much rioting Tibetan's are allowed to engage in. Is there a precise definable ceiling to the amount violence, per quota of oppression? More interestingly what quantity of oppression is necessary before outright insurrection is allowed?

Indeed, we do agree that there is at least some "degree" of oppression in Canada, therefore, one must be able to assert that that oppression means that some vandalism can be "forgiven" as you say. Care to put a dollar figure on what degree of oppression, justifies what amount of property damage?

I am not going to spend a lot of time defending BB tactics, here really, but spending a lot of time condemning them is entirely counter-productive. I don`t think those tactics are necessary or warranted. I believe that all legal means of protest should be pursued. What other people believe is a matter of their own conscience. However I do think we need to energize our movement, so that lawful means of organizing and protest are protected from invasive police tactics.

Re: Blac Bloc: Since we appear to still be in a dither about the BB here's more info

http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/07/455610.html?

see 'Comments':

"every 'blac block' demo on the international summit stage has been infiltrated by pigs, its old news, get over it. they don't do it to make us look bad - which we don't care about anyways - it's a war not a debate - they do it to try and identify 'ringleaders' for snatch squads...

there is also footage of police fleeing not abandoning, but running away from vehicles being attacked, that is a fact

The Black Block Papers

http://fuckcopyright.blogspot.com/2010/01/black-bloc-papers.html

haven't the foggiest..

Countering Conspiracy Theories:

http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/story/countering-conspiracy-theories-polic...

"The 'burning question' of why police failed to respond more aggressively to the Black Bloc, quickly gave rise to conspiracy theories that they 'allowed it to happen'. This is a common response from conspiracy theorists and liberals and has a number of contributing factors..."

Big Unions Little Black Bloc

http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/blog/bineshii/4181

"In reaction to the rioting, Big Union leadership has thoroughly adopted the corporate police state propaganda of characterizing rioters as thugs and vandals committing acts of crime against an innocent population of law abiding citizens.."

I think the black bloc would have more credibility if they took their "struggle" outside of mass demonstrations and actually walked the walk. That means not using the Raging Grannies as human shields after they do their "revolutionary" property damage. 

I can't believe anyone would take these clowns seriously. They are dilettantes, revolutionary tourists who can't do anything outside of the protective embrace of the riot police. It's a fashion choice, not a political one. If they were serious, they wouldn't wait for the police and the tv crews to get there; they'd be targetting actual capitalist institutions. But we know they won't do that, and the state and the police know they won't do that, which is why they are easily ignored, easily infiltrated, and easily used as a prop. The truth is that the state, which they so oppose, allows them the space to have their little temper tantrums as long as it serves the state's purposes. If they act that way outside the protection of the police, there would be actual, real consequences to their actions, like charges of terrorism. And that doesn't look good on a resume or CV, does it?

If the Black Bloc wanted to be taken seriously, then STFU and do something that actually hurts their capitalist enemies instead of the left. That is, if they can find the time and energy after getting that new "traitors before enemies" tattoo. But hey, that's cool. We'll wait......

Typical anti-union anti-worker propaganda, including the terms "Big Union" and "Big Labour". This character keeps talking about "anarchists" as being responsible for the hooligan vandal tactics. That converges nicely with the MSM saying the RBC branch was torched by an "anarchist" group. This "bineshii" character tries to give both unions and anarchists a bad name, but the article smacks of nothing more than an impotent yell in the face of the mass movement which just hasn't caught up to "bineshii's" brilliant level of consciousness. We'll just plod along without "bineshii", I guess.

Unless you are blessed with x-ray vision, how could you tell if a black bloc member is a male or female if they all dress gender neutral? Were you trying to stare at tits and ass of the bloc, trying to determine who is who? Does is even frakken matter if they are male or female to you? If so, why? What sexist opinion would you like to share about activist involvement in demonstrations?

Harm-on-e, I posted this on my rabble.ca blog: G8/G20 Communique: Hunting the Black Bloc down like rabbits

It's worth a read for you.

IMHO the Black Bloc is not part of any progressive/left movement for social change.

Their role at the G20 was to provoke police repression and to aid the state in "justifying" the $1.4 billion spent on so-called "security".

Why else would the cops leave the Black Bloc types alone and then do a massive sweep of peaceful protesters, protest "tourists", journalists and anyone they felt like busting?     The Black Bloc (those that weren't cops themselves) handed Harper & Co. a gift...and a gift that will keep on giving.

When over a thousand people were facing police repression, where were all the Black Blockers?   Where were all of these "more militant than thou" folks?

And when you call supporters of Black Bloc tactics on this, their answer is to tell everyone else on the left to STFU.   Gee...that's Harper & Co.'s message too.    Nuff said.

Yeah, statica, another article full of similar slanderous shit by the same "Stimulator" character was posted earlier by another defender of juvenile window-smashing car-burning "revolutionary" tactics. If I were you, I'd remove the link.

Unionist, this whole thread is ridiculous and I see only a handful of repeat names trying to keep it going.  I'm giving up on the babble forums because a small number of people like the ones here can sabotage the whole media.  I don't have time to spend on useless things like this and unfortunately they win.

Many good posters I used to like to read for have stopped posting or significantly reduced their participation.  But I will still look for their writings whenever I can.  I wish Rabble would make it easier to do sucha search.  Stay well Unionist.

"Other people's opinions"? Calling Judy Rebick and Derrick O'Keefe and the like liberals? Why should I be respectful of that? I'm waiting for your reply.

That isn't what you are doing. What you are doing is dividing the left by directly attacking the right of the most marginalized of this society from openly expressing their narrative. If the "movement" closes down the discourse of the most oppressed, then who does it really represent? Not them for sure. It represents, your view of how they should behave and how they should think. In a nutshell you are asserting your "right" to dominate the discourse and its political outcomes.

Did anyone here suggest that you MUST use the word "pig" to describe the police in thread titles? No. Not at all, it is you (and the Rabble.ca editorial team) who have determined that the word "pig" MAY NEVER be used in thread titles.

Worse still, and this is the part you do not seem to get, the movement is strongest when it is not divided and most able to maintain spaces such as these for democratic discourse between people who do not necesarily agree on each and every point of discussion. Indeed, you are claiming that you are doing this in the name some "unknown" others, who you theorize exist somewhere else. Well, they aren't here are they? If they really cared, they would be here arguing your point. But they are not. We are here, defending free speech and democracy on this board, at this time.

What does your "theoretical" movement stand for, if not the rights of the most marginalized to express their narrative? In fact, when it actively and openly opposes it? Well, in truth it represents the right of privilege to assert its dominance over the rights of the most marginalized -- it is no movement at all.

I find this whole excercise abit insulting as well, but I find it particularly galling that people who routinely talk down to others as "soft" also demand loyalty without even addressing the perfectly valid concerns expressed.

I think we tend to spend so much time arguing over them because these issues keep coming up and become the focal point of debate.  I would agree that new tactics need to developed and pursued by everyone.   I'll leave it at that too then as I see you're on a cross-country tour with your young family.  And I'm sure this will come up again later, anyhow.   :)

Why should members of the working class turn themselves over to the law enforcement of the capitalist class?

What did they do wrong?

Burning a few cop cars and breaking windows is not a crime against humanity. It's a crime against capitalist property rights, which is a crime in itself.

How about this, the Capitalist class hands over it's war criminals for trial by the working class and the working class will hand over it's property vandals?

Well I personally think the destruction of people and the prosecution of  said destroyers should come first, along with huge actions against the police state that was imposed.

We the people are more important than property afterall.

I can't speak for all vandalism that happened during G20 protest byt the ones I saw were clearly being allowed to happen by the police.  It happened right before police eyes who were outnumbering the vandals maybe by 10 to 1.  It was as if these few masked vandals were working with the police. 

I would speculate that if these vandals were not contracted by the police then their "leader" was an under cover agent.

What we should ask for is that these vandals be held responsible for their destructive actions under the law and not be given any leniency.  What we can hope for is for a public inquiry to look into the relationship of police with the masked BB and why the police made no attempt to stop the vandalism.

I see. So now your argument seems to be the the police willfully instigated violence, subverted the charter, and acted outside the law against the policy guidelines of their own organization in order to use that as a justification for repressing totally lawful and peacful activities sponsored by the labour movement, and its allies, but above all, no one should dare call these people nasty names, such as "pigs", because that would be rude.

And so you think that because it is your right to defend the feelings of people who you think "willfully instigated violence, subverted the charter, and acted outside the law against the policy guidelines of their own organizations" because it "achieves nothing" that you also have the right to dictate to everyone else how they should respond?

What happened to "I can't speak for all"? You seem perfectly happy to determine what people can and can not say.

This is just an ad hominem attack. I am certainly not going to reveal any biographical details about what I am and am not doing to you on this web site. Suffice to say, if you bothered to look you will see that I actually started the thread annoucing that yesterday was the last day to submit complaints about police handling of the G20 to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association with details on how to get involved in the proccess on this web site.

Given this, in this isntance, as in many others, I suggest you "get a clue" as opposed to coming out with spurious and unfounded allegations based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever: I totally support flooding the Police Complaints Commission, and any ongoing processess with as many complaints as possible.

Now that this is clear. Do you care to explain what happened to "I can't speak for all"? Or are you at least willing to admit that is just a sop you throw out to democratic process on your way to undermining it so that you can impose your world view on everyone else?

You obviously haven't been following this discussion with any seriousness. Otherwise you would know that I am completely aware of the precise nature of the ban. I made the point that if calling the police "pigs" in thread titles, was dehumanizing and "anti-labour", and therefore against babble policy, it should also be against babble policy everywhere on the site.

You are saying it is only dehumanizing in thread titles, but not in thread content?

This point was made variously by a few people, including E. Tamaran, Caissa and myself, and I agreed with them, and stated as much myself, long before you "corrected" me:

On July 14th, in this thread, at post 39 I said:

That was three days ago. In no way shape or form did I "acknowlege" your "correction", because I was quite well aware that the ban is only in thread titles. Yesterday, I was talking about the "principle" of the ban in general, in thread titles, or anywhere. A ban is a ban is a ban, even with exceptions. The inconsistency of the ban indicates a serious problem with the logic of the ban. A principle should be universal, right?

In anycase, this debate is not really about calling cops "pigs". That is a very small part of the picture. In fact, my guess is the whole "pigs" in thread titles issue is actually a trigger experiment designed to demonstrate that when the chips are down Rabble.ca will defend the state institutions that protect white supremacy from the righteous anger of first nations people.

If you must know, up until this issue arose, I never called cops pigs, nor do I particularly like to. I only began to do so when the issue arose here. I will however defend the right of people to ridicule the institutions of state power.

Cruisin_turtle stated: "will be damaging to rabble and everyone associated with it..."

Actually what I see damaging to rabble and those associated with it, is pandering to; the police state, white male supremacy, and generaly becoming more and more like the msm.

I'll post in a new thread since at 118 replies I figure this one is not long for this world...