Horrified at threats of lateral violence present on babble

Ya, really.  But if it helps, I personally do *not* support "hunting down" anything "like rabbits"...including rabbits.  That other heading was, I assume, merely an overly-exuberant expression. 

I do support some sign of self discipline, however, and "allies" who have some end in mind beyond venting a spleen on meaningless targets.  At some expense to others who aren't wearing masks. 

Anonymity is a sound tactical decision on the part of an insurgent. The secret elements of national security services use telescoping camera equipment to capture images and compare them against existing databases such as driver licence photos or other government IDs to determine the identities and addresses of individuals.

More than the distasteful minions of national security, SlumberJ.

In the late 1980s/early 1990s Alberta Pacific found a stretch of (almost) pristine Athabasca River and decided to do something about it - build a pulp mill. Given their horrid reputation at the mill in BC, environmentalist were shocked. David Schindler campaigned against it, David Suzuki editorialized against it and rallies were held.

At that time some thugs in the town of Athabasca took matters into their own hands would would happily and merrily lay a beating on anyone against the mill. (Special treatment given to the fellow that gave Klein the bird.) When someone complained that the police were being violent they, truthfully, said it was not them - even as they watched it happen. It was these private thugs.

A friend of the town of Athabasca did go to several demonstrations against the mill - wearing a mask so the company thugs (paid or volunteer) could not identify him.

Since then I have had a lot of sympathy for anyone wearing a mask or face covering at any public event.

I'm on so many fichiers and files by now that what slumberjack says is a moot point, but croghan's example is more telling.

Unionist wrote:

Sure, especially when you are acting alone and have zero mass support...

I'm not sure if the cheering crowds that were on hand to witness the sight of burnt out cop cars being towed away is indicative of zero support, staged event or not.  It may very well be a sign that not every joyous event that stirs the soul can be entirely straightjacketed by those who attempt to appropriate and define what constitutes mass opinion.

@Slumberjack: people are free to limit their participation to legally authorised protests or to not participate in protests at all.  Please don't try to impose your values on others.

Who are the "minions" when the only difference between agent provocteurs and vandal "protesters" is that one group get paid for their work and are usually members of a (police) union?

I'm surprised at the support here for scab volunteer labour. After all, with the masks  you can't be absolutely sure they are all police union workers.

While I share Unionist's principled convictions about mass support, I very much fear giving the authorities any (further) excuse at all to criminalize modes of dress. I'm sure that many of them would be only too happy to do that, and for reasons none of us would agree with.

I think it is not illegal in Ontario to cover your face, yes/no? On those grounds, Blair should be challenged for the way that his officers targeted anyone who was, eg, wearing a bandana or carrying goggles or a gas mask in a backpack. Are bandanas illegal? Are goggles illegal? Are gas masks illegal? If not, it is none of Blair's forking business why people might have them.

The people of Ontario shouldn't have to pass an exam administered by McGuinty and Blair before they walk out their front doors at any time of day.

Do you really believe that holding to ones principles is going to work in the long run against those who are utterly unprincipled?  Can you not understand the context of principles vs what has occurred in the long run of the past 30 years?

SJ, I don't know whether you were addressing me, but I certainly can understand your frustration. You should hear the speeches I make at my monitor several times every day.

The trouble is, I know something about history in the long term, social history, and what I know is that it takes numbers. You want change, you get (or suddenly find) one million people in Nathan Phillips Square or at Queen't Park. Kettle that, McGuinty and Blair.

It matters that we remain principled and also that we have pure hearts, SJ. I hears ya. But it won't happen just because we wish harder. The work is long and slow and often sad. Or angry. But it takes numbers.

So just out of simple curiosity - is there anyone here (or anyone on babble) who thinks it should be unlawful to cover one's face during protests?

Or is it much more fun to create straw men and then hunt them down like rabbits?

Unionist wrote:

So just out of simple curiosity - is there anyone here (or anyone on babble) who thinks it should be unlawful to cover one's face during protests?

Or is it much more fun to create straw men and then hunt them down like rabbits?

Unionist, to be fair, I thought that it was sometimes unclear on that first thread what people intended by unmasking provocateurs -- hand them over to teh cops or deal with them ourselves? I realize that you have never argued the former, but I wasn't sure that some other people weren't. I think that people need to be given a chance to think this through.

I have wild rabbits. Anyone comes here and tries to hunt them down, he'll have me to deal with. I may be a little old lady, but I can has pitchfork.

skdadl wrote:

Unionist, to be fair, I thought that it was sometimes unclear on that first thread what people intended by unmasking provocateurs -- hand them over to teh cops or deal with them ourselves?

Skdadl - really - please re-read the OP. It is about people who are masked - nothing else. Now, I asked for a link to anyone saying people wearing masks should be unmasked by force or handed over to the cops. I haven't seen one yet. So it's a diversion.

On the other hand, let's forget about masks for a moment, and say that we're having a nice demonstration, when suddenly one of the (unmasked) demonstrators calls over some media person with cameras, and starts setting fire to trash bins, breaking windows of shops, and torching empty cars (any old cars) - but not hurting anyone. Pretend you're an organizer of that demo - or just a participant. What would you do?

I'll tell you what I would do. [b]Anything reasonably necessary[/b] to stop the asshole. That could absolutely include, after a warning, turning the asshole over to the cops.

Unionist wrote:

So just out of simple curiosity - is there anyone here (or anyone on babble) who thinks it should be unlawful to cover one's face during protests?

Or is it much more fun to create straw men and then hunt them down like rabbits?

 

I think I made it clear that I don't think it should be unlawful. I do however know that bans on anonymity  have not stoppad a nuch higher level of political engagement and protest in Germany.

On the other hand, England has a new "anti-terrorism" law which prevents photographing police. So they seem to want to play the anonymity game as well:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7888301.stm

Slumberjack wrote:

contrarianna wrote:

I'm surprised at the support here for scab volunteer labour. After all, with the masks  you can't be absolutely sure they are all union workers.

I'm not surprised actually, to find more opinions being voiced in support of the herd mentality approach as it pertains to social change.  The slow scenic passage to oblivion tends to have more appeal for those who prefer the normality of the times over the disruptive inconvienience of insurrection and revolt....

The words "insurrection" and "revolt" have a different resonance and reception in a "managed democracy" such as Canada than in a more overtly totalitarian state.

And aside from the notion, sui generis, of "permanent revolution" or "permanent warfare" such as some followers of Trotsky (and his converts to neoconservativism) have, the tokenistic destruction of property is presumably a means to a political end.

The Harper government and the security state developers of Canada have a relatively clear end in mind in the use of agent provocateurs:

1) Justify the savage repression of ANY dissent and obliterate the reasons for that dissent.
2) Through the ever-willing complicit corporate media make sure the main of the public sides with ever expanding repressive action, by eliciting fear and anger through showcasing "terrorist mindless violence".

Indistinguishable actions, regardless of who is doing (provocateurs or "protesters") will elicit the same political effects.  In the case of very differing goals for indistinguishably actions, one of the proposed outcomes must be very mistaken.

My bet is that incipient security state actually knows what it is doing in the use of agent provocateurs. The supporters of "diversity of actions"--not so much.

contrarianna wrote:

The words "insurrection" and "revolt" have a different resonance and reception in a "managed democracy" such as Canada than in a more overtly totalitarian state.

I know its bad form, but I just couldn't stifle a laugh at this statement against the backdrop of the past two weeks alone. Isn't it a little reactionary to base ones actions, or lack thereof, on what the state will manufacture on its own for the purpose of justifying its aggression, regardless of any provocation that may confront it?

Every time the corporate state is compelled to reveal its iron jaws to our polite society, each instance should be seen as an opportunity to reveal that which already exists but remains hidden until their hand is forced. So yes, our circumstances are certainly quite unlike other regions as you suggest, or even within this country for select communities, where totalitarian fangs are unrelentingly bared against the unfortunate population.  Apparently we have more to lose than 'them.'  Solidarity has its own lines in the sand after all, so long as we're standing on our side.

Freedom 55 wrote:

Quote:

That's why immigrant workers, union members, and single parents on welfare don't cover their faces when they take to the streets.

 

That's a lie.

I don't mean that none of the Black Bloc fall in the above categories, in case you had trouble deciphering my sentence. I meant that immigrant workers and union members and single parents on welfare don't wear masks in order to avoid reprisal from the authorities, or their union, because of their status. That's the idiotic claim that was made above. Yes, of course, a union member that decides to join in on Black Bloc tactics will wear a mask, but not because of being a union member. Hope that clarifies my meaning.

And by the way, just because you happen to defend the window smashing and car burning, and I don't, doesn't mean you have to use words like "lie". Maybe I'm just mistaken. Maybe I have a wrong belief. A "lie" is something quite different. If you have some evidence to bear or other opinion to bring forward, do so. But don't tell me union members wear masks because of fear of retaliation. And I don't mean one guy once in Alberta somewhere, thanks very much.

Unionist wrote:

just because you happen to defend the window smashing and car burning

Show me a quote, please.

Freedom 55 wrote:

I don't know about union members fearing reprisals from their bosses or their union leaders,

That's correct, you don't know. In fact, the opening post suggested that unions take reprisal against members who attend events not sanctioned by the union. That kind of anti-union slanderous propaganda, besides being a filthy lie, is prohibited by babble policy.

Quote:

... but for immigrant workers and people on social assistance, I can assure you that they/we certainly do.

Yes, I'm not a fool, and I understand that non-citizen workers fear reprisals (not "immigrant workers" - why would they be more afraid than any others???). As for people on social assistance, you'll have to explain to me how being seen in a protest would lead to getting cut off. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but surely if it has, it needs to be publicized and fought. It's news to me.

But this isn't about fearing reprisals. This is about people who wear masks (and people who don't) because they plan to carry out vandalism in the course of the actual protest. To compare such people with those who fear reprisals because of their status, or simply because they stand up and speak their minds and demonstrate, is very profoundly insulting. It is exactly the kind of identification ("protesters = criminals, vandals, property-destroyers") that the state would like to make and does make daily. It is one of the key reasons why we must organize to isolate and neutralize the vandals, whether they are masked or not.

Quote:

I'm talking about people masking up to prevent the state from going after them for simply speaking-out and taking a stand.

I fully agree with you. Anyone who wears a mask for fear of such reprisal has my support. But to suggest that wearing masks in such situations is widespread - or that it is in any way analogous to the smashers and burners - is factually false and deeply defamatory.

lagatta wrote:

I'm on so many fichiers and files by now that what slumberjack says is a moot point, but croghan's example is more telling.

Indeed, aside from intimidating the general public the mass arrest in Toronto recently probably had as much to do with creating a good list.

Yes, indeed, the issue should be dropped or quotes provided. Instigating counseling and "conspiracy to commit mischief" charges against people were in part based on surveillance of internet chat forums, as is clear based on Chief Blair's statements to the press. So, in my opinion accusations of this sort should be corroborated or dropped.

How about we stick to the topic, and everyone can speak for themselves?

All, I see is you derailing this thread with some assertions about what Freedom55 thinks and believes. The attack is basically ad hominem in the context of this thread, and you are bringing in a previous discussion to derail this thread. If you really want to persist in this interrogation you should add quotes to those links, as opposed asserting the fact that they support your conclusions.

Saying that a debate on tactics is "an internecine war within the Left" does not indicate support for either side, it simply asserts that there is an debate. You however, are asserting your reading that this statement amounts to support of those tactics, as a fact, and as I tried to point out, your reading, may have legal implications.

On that basis, I am asking you to find a statement by Freedom55 where he/she says they support those tactics, as opposed to inferring that they do.

ennir wrote:

My suggestion would be that the black bloc NEVER be allowed into the midst of peaceful protesters again, if they want to act independently then that is there choice.

Have you given any thought to the notion that it was the peaceful protesters who were raining on the black bloc parade?  Perhaps they'll disallow pacifists in their midst the next time around.  See how they'll like it then.

One can only hope not for long.

Nice try, bineshii. You found one bizarre comments about masks (from Green Grouch) - one bad-taste joke (from Buddy Kat) - and the rest were about assholes committing vandalism. I stand by my comment which you quoted above, which, you will notice, has nothing to do with masks or no masks.

If you want to say: "It's horrible that people are calling for copcar burners and window smashers to be neutralized or handed over to the police" - say so. Don't hide behind the mask.