Rumours about the Black Bloc 2

I move closure :)

Bourinot's rules of order :) 

I was disturbed by the comments in the previous thread on a couple levels. The most important is the failure by many, seemingly of different viewpoints, to recognize that the left, and indeed rabble.ca is not a single entity but a grouping of very different people, with different agendas, concerns and beliefs.

When it comes to rabble.ca, the only thing we have in common is a desire to post here and read what is posted here. It is asked with substantial although not complete compliance that people respect certain other rules of the place. However that is it. There are no people who represent "rabble.ca" from a political perspective, not even the staff. There is no point to be made about someone from rabble working with the police, being a part of the police, calling the police names or anything else. All the dancing around this in the previous thread is what made me uncomfortable about it.

As far as the comments of the left-- there is in fact no such "movement" in Canada. I am annoyed every time I see it represented as a monolith. People here cannot even agree on what the left is, where it's political borders are on the spectrum and left for those who do not consider themselves left is everything left of themselves. The left is a huge group of people who have nothing more in common than having identified themselves as such or been identified as such. It has no opinion per se and many natural contradictions as you would expect and indeed hope for.

As for political tactics, the left in general, or rabble in particular have no need or even ability to explain, condone or criticize.

Now as for the Black Block. I have no respect for them and do not appreciate what they do. My reason is perhaps different and has nothing to do with the historical rights or wrongs about violent protest. It also has nothing to do with the even the effectiveness of their tactics.

I have no respect for the Black Block because they are hijackers. Those who believe in peaceful protest have a right to have one and have a right to condemn those who come in their protest and turn it in to something else. Many of us believe in collective purpose and democracy, even as we live in a country that fails to recognize it. It is extremely ironic that people could assume that their own vision of how to protest a democratic failure should trump the majority and organizers of a protest and that they should impose their agenda on the majority. To the Black Block, if you are reading this-- what makes your imposition of violence on a peaceful protest that did not want you any better than the police and state imposition of a less than democratic context for the whole scene?

To the Black Block-- if you want my respect, do what you will, outside of other people's stated protests, stop hijacking a majority purpose for a minority for whatever reason. I don't care very much if the Black Block are police undercover, kids looking for thrills or people who are trying to make a point. In all cases, you still have invaded a peaceful march and protest and hijacked it for your ends whatever they were. You have guaranteed that all we talk about is you. You have swamped all thought and consideration and purpose of peaceful protest.

To make the point more clear, I stated before the G20 that I was no longer in favour of street protests. The reason is I think they are ineffective and that we need to use other means of civil expression and protest to achieve a peaceful point. My reason for stating this is due to the actions of the Black Block that over a series of events have partly discredited political protest (a point that may be debatable) but completely overwhelmed any discussion of other purpose behind peaceful protest (a point that might not even be possible to debate). There no longer is any coverage other than the violence as the Black Block are aware that "if it bleeds, it leads" -- their actions will overtake any other point being made.

So the Black Block crash and destroy any party they go to to the point that people who want to make a point other than broken windows and burned police cars have nowhere else to turn. If you want to break windows and burn police cars do it at a location and in a crowd separate from the one that asked all participants to keep it peaceful, then we can discuss the legitimacy of the tactic. In the meantime you have no legitimacy as you seek to overwhelm the majority of the protest that day with your own agenda and purpose and use people who do not support your purpose as human shields to take the tear gas, rubber bullets and police brutality that you inspire-- even if it remains unjustified-- you provide the cover for it. You have provided the reason why we cannot show up in peaceful protest with our children to object to things affecting our families and future. I don't have a problem either with someone wanting to fly anywhere they want in the world. I do have a problem when someone gets on a plane and uses violence to hijack it to their own destination of choice. I don't look at the BB hijackers much differently than I do a hijacker on a plane.

This is not about as I say, those people who stormed the barricades in the past or the women suffragettes. They held their own protest and decided it's terms. They also selected among the available tactics of their time. There is a whole world of difference. There are many more options available and if you show up at a protest you ought to at least respect the majority of those there about the limits of the protest or expect people like me and I suspect others, to disrespect you. Let me be clear as someone who posts here. I would hand you over to the police if you attended a rally I organized and did this. If you created your own scene, I would not because I likely would not even be there.

I am not at war with the small grocers of Chinatown or even the owners of franchises along that street. If you come to smash and grab, you do not represent me. The least you can do is show up on a different street, at a different time than others who want to make a peaceful point. People that agree with me are forced to find other means of making a point since you shouted over us so that we, the majority of the opposition to this stinking government and system, could not be heard. Don't expect cover from me and don't accuse anyone I am associated with of being traitors or snitches if we fail to protect your agenda. We may both be in opposition to this government, we may both self identify as being on the left, but that may be all we have in common. Stage your own party rather than crash mine if you want my respect.

Sorry for the rant-- and I'll post it unedited because I lack the time to do otherwise today. But I hope I have expressed why I found the previous thread disturbing.

ETA- I did shorten a little but ran out of time for more trimings

A bit long but eloquently expressed, Sean. This might be a good place to close :)

All right, that's enough. All splittists are hereby expelled! Only those who stand for unity (i.e. me) are welcome to stay.

*hands Unionist a HUGE pile of utility bills* well, since your name is the one that is going to be on the lease now

I think that the term "hijacking" can be used in relation to the actions of protestors who use the Black Bloc tactic in Vancouver, at any rate.

Today a protest was held in Vancouver to denounce the gross violations of civil liberties at the G20.  The organizers specifically stated that Black Bloc tactics were not welcome at the demo.  (You can read about that here: http://www.straight.com/article-333117/vancouver/black-bloc-activists-not-welcome-upcoming-g20-protest-vancouver ) The marshalls I spoke to justified this exclusion as an exclusion of tactics, not of people: they were treating the Black Bloc not as a group, but as a strategy. Like me, they did not want the protest to be overshadowed by a tactic used to provoke the police, they did not want the media coverage of the event to be swallowed up by the Black Bloc, and they didn't want the people coming to the protest to feel frightened that the Black Bloc would offer the cops a pretext for violence. Even so, about half a dozen people who identified as militants showed up, wearing pink disguises instead of black and claiming that the organizers were trying to exclude "militants".

The contempt shown for the organizers could not have been more blatant, and the fact that those who were wearing the disguises were creating an identity around them was equally clear. Their decision to ignore the expressed wishes of the organizers revealed a profound lack of solidarity on the part of the Black Bloc with the larger protest. The marshalls, meanwhile, simply didn't know how to confront them.

The justification given by the militants for ignoring the organizers' wishes was pretty clear: one of their supporters told me that they also engaged in a lot of community organizing, therefore implying that they had a right to use whatever tactics they felt were appropriate.

I think that these self-professed militants have to be understood as a kind of fundamentalist movement within the Left. As Karen Armstrong extensively documents in her book "The Battle for God", fundamentalism very rarely arises as a response to the larger secular society that it publicly decries. Instead, it appears as a reaction against "moderates" and "modernizers" within religious traditions. The moderates are then villified as sell-outs, unfaithful, apostates, etc. The fundamentalists therefore have a perversely symbiotic relationship with those they see as having betrayed the faith: the fundamentalists' own sense of purity depends on the perceived lack of purity of those who are supposedly faithful in name only.

Fundamentalism, in other words, is a kind of "purity politics". These politics reveal themselves in the vitriol directed by supporters of the Black Bloc towards people like Judy Rebick, Naomi Klein, Derrick O'Keefe, David Eby, Chris Shaw, and others who have dedicated so much effort to confronting the evils of corporatism. It also appears in the Black Bloc communique issued during the Vancouver Olympics that declares that all other activists will eventually join them. To engage in Black Bloc militancy is framed as an expression of Leftist purity: they see themselves as the Left's righteous remnant. Today one of their supporters compared them to the Zapatistas...which, given the well-deserved awe in which the Zapatistas are held, is sort of like Christian fundamentalists comparing themselves to the original gang of 12.

Ethically speaking, the actions of Black Bloc protestors--such as threatening passers-by, smashing the windows of mom-and-pop operations, engaging in petty vandalism, and deliberately trying to provoke the police--are, of course, dwarfed by the soul-killing violence committed by the police during the G20. Even so, the militants' refusal to show solidarity with the larger movement, their willingness to play the role of anarchist boogeyman for the MSM, and their inability to recognize that their actions endanger unmasked protestors--including the children people bring to these events--is utterly disgraceful. More dangerously, by confusing purity politics with ethical vision and tactical excellence, they blind themselves to their own strategic blunders: political action is transformed into self-referential political theatre, doing great damage to attempts to organize genuinely mass movements for social change.

This may be so. But if we accept the logic of this analysis, of Black Block as fundamentalist we can then look at it in real world terms.

So, for example, if you take this view and apply it to the situation of Palestinians and the conflict between the PLO acting as the PA, and Hamas, we see how damaging it was for the PLO to become directly involved in policing Hamas. This was not only divisive, but ialso only added credibility to Hamas, because from the view of the average Palestinian it began to be seen that the PLO was simply acting on behalf of the Israeli state, and indeed, and the end result has been the burgeoning of support for Hamas, as the true leaders of the Palestinian resistance, whereas the PLO is largely discredited as a force of Palestinian resistance.

The whole issue resolves to how one actually excludes or polices the activities of fringe groups. I don't even think this is possible inside a democratic process, so, if the issue is one of reducing division, I think even attempting to police the Black Block will result in further divisiness, while at the same time buying into the logic of the right, because by policing them we are accepting the responsibility for their actions.

We most certainly should make it clear that we are not responsible for the activities for each and every individual who attends a demonstration.

This is a Sysiphian and ultimately fruitless struggle. The more energy we put into it, the more we are asserting the view of the authorities.

Lets be clear about what happened at the G20. It was the police who decided not to confront the Black Block, Indeed, they easily could have formed up squads to arrest individuals in the crowd at Queens Park, with little to no resistance. Or they could have arrested them in the commission of their protest on Yonge Street. This was not the strategy that the police chose to use. What the police chose to do was use the Black Block as an excuse to clear the park of any and all protestors.

Obviously, the sole responsibility for making these decisions was the police. We must be clear that not all persons are responsible for the activities of a few through a process of collective punishment, because we will never be able to prevent some demonstrators (agent provocateurs or not) from taking matters into their own hands.

Emma Goldman never shied away from proclaiming the right to use force.

From the New York Times on the occassion of her arrest for sedition.

Back in the days when the police asked you whether you preferred to remove yourself to prison of your own volition in a public streetcar, or at the expense of the police in a paddy wagon, and when the press reported what dissidents actually said.

Cueball: I'm not sure that the analogy with the PLO and Hamas holds: the fact of the matter was that the PLO was obviously playing the comprador role.  The same is not true of the wider social justice movement that the Black Bloc seems so contemptuous of. 

I don't think that we are responsible for the actions of every single protestor at demonstrations.  I do think, however, that many unmasked protestors are intimidated by protestors in Black Bloc disguises, perhaps for good reason: you never know what they're going to do next.  I believe that it is important to confront the Black Bloc when they show up at demos and to encourage widespread stigmatization of Black Bloc tactics.  If the Black Bloc isn't marginalized, then they will increasingly set the agenda for every protest: many people--including people I care about--won't go to these protests specifically because they're afraid of being caught up in a confrontation between the Black Bloc and the police.  The fewer people attend the protests, the more influence the Black Bloc will enjoy. 

I fear that the Black Bloc have the potential to become the Left's own blackshirts. We don't like to think of Left-wing authoritarianism as a genuine danger. This blindness to the Left's potential for authoritarianism has led us to be caught off guard again and again by protestors who use Black Bloc tactics.  Ignoring them simply doesn't work; more to the point, it empowers what is becoming a worrisome police-black bloc-MSM cultural triumverate.  

Having said this, there's little we can do to really isolate the Black Bloc if so many Leftist institutions--like a lot of the unions--continue turning a blind eye to the decimation of our civil liberties.  I didn't see any unions represented at the protest today; frankly, I barely saw any organizational banners at all. The groups that should be on the forefront of the fight against the police state seem be abdicating their role, a move that may allow the Black Bloc to fill the vacuum. I believe that this would be disastrous for the Left...and we aren't strong enough to endure many more disasters without completely disintegrating.

What an ironic post. I do agree with the point that the peaceful protests are trying to make and therefore have some purpose in speaking to the tactics. But let's explore your logic for a moment Cueball: We should not comment on those things we disagree with in terms of tactics etc. So Does this mean you will now either say you agree with the Conservative Party of Canada or are you planning to endorse them? Or are you going to stop talking about them as you disagree with the way they are running the country? How absurd the idea that we can only comment on the things we agree with. In this case it is not even the aims but the methods.I disagreed with -- so even those things you agree with Cueball if people don't use your prefered methods you intend to stay silent? How about my response? You clearly did not agree so why didn't you follow your own advice and stay silent? How quiet a national debate would be if we required all those who did not agree with even a method (nevermind a goal) were silenced.

Now I should consider the second point: you have concluded that I do not know the purpose of political protest simply because I included in my comment that media attention was swamped by stories of the violence. But that was not all I said or all I could say. However, you decided to take that single comment as "the test" of my understanding. Well, I do believe that protests have a target and when you get a lot of bodies out they may notice the opposition. However, when you dismiss them due to the violence and avoid the discussion and points they made what exactly are you getting across? It was not just mass media that did not notice the points of the protests. The distraction was near total-- on both sides-- it became a civil rights discussion not a discussion about the G20 or what they were or were not doing -- partly out of necessity. This was not about the media alone -- tis was about the impression people had from all sources.

You tell me what purposes exist other than getting attention of the target you are protesting against, getting attention of third parties (those who are not protesting or part of the target), and mobilizing those who are protesting. Those they were protesting against were able to dismiss the protest apparently very easily, third parties focused on the violence and even many people involved did not find it particularly rewarding or inspiring. What exactly did those protests achieve in the end? They certianly did not gain community support-- and in this case of course the police did not either.

I have not excused myself from anything here-- and your assumption that my simply having an alternative point of view effectively excuses myself says more about you than it does about me.

I have mentioned other threads on the topic of civil expression and will do so in the future. I may also assume I have the right to mention what does not work as well-- and in part the purpose is to get people to think of more ways to make the point. You don't have to have all solutions or even any solution just to recognize a problem.

So I trust you were pissed at my post and decided to write a nasty reply. Problem is you forgot to employ any logic or common sense in the crafting of your nastiness and I won't bother asking your permission to comment on anything I please.

Why don't you rebut by explaining what you thought the protest achieved and why you think street protests are particularly effective tools at this time, for this kind of event. I have been and will continue to be involved in other kinds of street protests as I was in the anti-prorogation rallies. But the G20 protests were predictably going to be overrun by violence on both sides before they were even planned. For those who wanted such a clash, then the event served a purpose but for those who wanted to make a peaceful street march, they never had one.

I have already stated that in fact you can get even the mass media to pay attention using other techniques that work better than street protest, I have also stated that I thought the idea of the girls summit held by Belinda Stronach was a good tactic that we should employ more often. I think that a wide number of communications strategies can be used using modern technology-- more than these large-scale protests and they can be effective.

Even the use of flash mob techniques can work -- where you provide short notice through large lists of people to get people to show up and confront politicians or businesses. These do not have the notice or cover for the violent fringe to take over and people plugged in to opposition movements can show up. There are numerous ways of embarrassing politicians and in fact they may take much smaller mobilizations. In most cases they are not generic but strategies unique to an event can be created.

I do not completely dismiss trying to involve main-stream media -- through op-eds and other tools as a lot of opinions can be shared that way. I also am aware that street protests are not free large organizations put a lot of money in to them and there are alternatives when you have that cash. I am not going to indulge this too much further though as I say you don't have to provide all the solutions just to have the right to say something is broken. There are many, many ways of making a point, even getting the dreaded media without having a bonfire of police cars paid for by public money.

I advocated direct protests to other countries asking them to comment on what is going on here.

One point I want to make is that the G20 protests were scripted in advance by the authorities-- people just played their parts in a game where the endgame had already been scripted by the government. Surely we can do better. We have to do better. And no Cueball, just because you disagree with me, I don't have to shut the fuck up.

Hard to say. However, in response to this post and Michaels. how exactly are we supposed to police this kind of thing inside a democratic process? If not a democratic process, then what: street fighting with some persons who we think might possibly engage in counter-productive activity?

Sounds to me like we would end up spending way more time fighting each other, and trying to track down provocateurs and police agents than confronting the powers that be.

The chief damage that agent provocateurs do to any movement is sowing distrust and causing arguments of the kind we are having now.