G8/G20: It's coming

118 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cytizen H

SparkyOne wrote:

I'm trying my damndest to avoid members of my organization from causing violence and intentionally instigating security so that makes me trying to control everything and be the supreme queen of everything lol

I think you're completely missing the point.

Within your own organization I think it is great if you put your position forward, try and influence your group through discussion, debate, whatever.

The problem is when you are willing to say these people shouldn't get to protest because I don't like how they do it. You aren't wrong not to like it. No one is saying you have to like it. But for you to think that you have the moral position to say who does or does not get to protest and who should go to jail for their mode of expression... Are you kidding me? I'd much rather stand with a black bloc than with someone who is on the side of the police. any day of the week.

SparkyOne

Would you rather stand beside someone vandalising stuff causing damage to public and private property physically attacking other human beings or someone who is protesting non-violently NOT causing any sort of damage NOT giving the police a reason to gas you and come in swinging?

 

If I looked out of my house and saw someone vandalising something I would call the cops. I would even take pictures if I was in a position to do so.

Being at a protest is no different.

The problem is somne people seem to think that if you're at a protest then causing violence and destruction is an accepted form of protest. Your "targeted destruction"   I disagree. THAT isn't protesting, that's being a criminal.

CitizenH do YOU think that it's okay to break the law and damage someones property just because you're at a protest? That being at a march  somehow makes it okay?

jacki-mo

I could never understand the rationale for damaging property at protests. It just adds to the negative images of progressives and hurts whatever the cause is. I don't think that throwing rocks through Starbuck's windows is what Thoreau had in mind with regard to civil disobedience.

 

SparkyOne

Exactly.

 

kropotkin1951

I actually don't disagree with much of that sentiment. But that means that symbolism is irrelevant so I struggle with it.  The window breaking at the Bay caused the international media for a brief millisecond to talk about the Bay's real history of oppression in Canada. The peaceful portion of that same march garnered no real coverage especially by the international media.

Now trashing the cars, even though I really hated the site of the gas guzzling vehicles at the "green" Olympics, was too esoteric to be understood easily and was a waste.  In that case the people who make up the Bloc made sure no other protesters would be affected except for their friends who don't ear bandanas. I might have been at that demonstration but I am getting old and the police bruised me quite badly in the mosh pit at BC Place the night before.  Full riot gear is like being at a hockey game where only one team wears equipment and they think that pushing and shoving people without padding is acceptable. 

My problem is not whether there should be a debate on tactics it is with people advocating that other protesters actually work in concert with the police if someone damages property.

I know you don't get this but many left wing activists who will be marching in the streets with you don't believe that property rights should be equated with civil rights like the right to freedom of expression. [our constitution agrees by the way]  If you want all the socialists and communists and anarchists who don't have your love of private property marginalized then maybe you should say so and get your organization to say so.  Then you and your friends can have an exclusive little parade where private property is fully respected.

There is no doubt who the media is going to blame for any problems.  You should be happy the Black Bloc is willing to play the villain in this morality play because it means you don't have to be pepper sprayed or beaten like they used to in pre Bloc days. Now there are two dance partners and you are safe to wave and chant to your hearts content.  Advocating becoming a police informant is repugnant and I think it clearly violates the spirit of solidarity.  Different people have different views of how to fight the totalitarian state that is on full display in TO just like it was a couple of months ago in Vancouver.   Which side are you on.

thorin_bane

Because a lot of the people damaging stuff at protest aren't protesters. Go back and watch the cops pull of of their own over the line in his work issued boots at the SPP protests...oh wiat it must have been those elderly people that started it. The guy was reported as "one of those awful violent protesters against the police line" Problem is, he was a cop. You get it now.

 

To be honest I can see where people are ready for violence. The canadian public is the most docile in the world. We are nothing more than a chicago school experiment to see how far an industrialized populance can be pushed without too much police force. Apparently a lot. There would be protests a league long in france if their government tried half the shit harper and iggy are doing here.

thorin_bane

Well you know their have always been collaborators when fascism rears its ugly head. This is how it starts. Yeah you want to do things 'right' but turning on people in this manner isn't much different and that is the slippery slope.

remind remind's picture

delightfully continued over here

SparkyOne

That post was much better than a cheap attempt to take my opinion out of context Krop thank you. I enjoyed that post and see your point of view more clearly.

I'm still struggling with the whole property damage issue.

What I'm getting (correct me if I'm confused) is that commiting criminal actions like vandalisim and assault is OKAY because it's to do with protesting. It's symbolisim.

Firebombing a bank because they supported the olympics is okay.

Firebombing a bank because someone couldn't get a loan for a new car is bad.

Breaking windows at the Bay is okay (justified?) because it brought breif attention to wrong doing they did.  What about smashing windows AND breaking things inside? What about setting it on fire. Oh hell what about just blowing it up?  Where do you draw the line? 

The people (good point let snot call them protesters) who go to protests specifically to clash with police and security are doing absolutely nothing for the rest of us.

It's taking attention away from our efforts and agitating the police and justifing their use of force.  There are three sides.

Protesters, agitators and the police. I'm with the first.

You think that confronting the poilce is a form of protest and I disagree, it doesn't look like we will be changing our opinion anytime soon so I'll leave it at that.

Krystalline Kraus Krystalline Kraus's picture

G8/G20 Communiqué: If the police or CSIS come knocking, part 1
By Krystalline Kraus | June 9, 2010 | http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/statica/2010/06/g8g20-communiqu%C3%A9-if-police-or-csis-come-knocking-part-1

 

G8/G20 Communiqué: If the police or CSIS come knocking, part 2
By Krystalline Kraus | June 11, 2010 | http://www.rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/statica/2010/06/g8g20-communiqu%C3%A9-if-police-or-csis-come-knocking-part-2

Krystalline Kraus Krystalline Kraus's picture

SparkyOne,

I feel I have to step in and warn you that if your insistence on taking photographs of what other protestors/(agent provocateurs) are doing at the demo with the specific intent of turning them over to the police is true, then I want to warn you that you might face a backlash on the streets from your fellows.

I can't assume anyone would take kindly to a police collaborator in their midst.

Just a friendly warning from a veteran here because you should know the risks of police collaboration.

SparkyOne

Thanks for the warning. What kind of backlash are you talking about? Suyrely nothing violent right?

Someone should warn these people about cameras too.

 

 

 

Camers work both ways.  It captures police violence against us too. Camera's aren't evil. And look at these people, do you really think they care that they are on camera? they love it. Like 8 year olds with an audience.

 

Again thanks for the warning, but how is it any different than this?

Quote:
I feel I have to step in and warn you that if your insistence on taking photographs of what other protestors/(agent provocateurs)Police officers are doing (to protesters) at the demo with the specific intent of turning them over to the police the media (for public release) is true, then I want to warn you that you might face a backlash on the streets from your fellows.from other police officers and security groups

 So basically, if you "rat us out" we're gonna get ya.  How very schoolyard.    ( I think you were being sincere with your warning but I don't agree with that proposed mentality)

 

I'm still wrapping my head around the concept that it's okay to smash property and people because it's in the context of a protest and not a Monday morning.

Krystalline Kraus Krystalline Kraus's picture

Two points:

1: I cannot say what will or will not happen to you. But historically, police or state collaborators have not been treated well.

2: Regarding watching what the police are doing to demonstrators. There will be trained legal observers on the streets during the demos, plus many different stakeholders carrying cameras. But to imply some kind of balance between the power of an individual vs. the power of a police officer is frankly ridiculous.

In the context of political demonstrations under the government we have today, the reality is that the police hold the balance of power. For proof, look no further than the police complaints/accountability system.

Perhaps you could fathom this as a reason why people are demonstrating in the first place?

SparkyOne

statica wrote:
Two points: 1: I cannot say what will or will not happen to you. But historically, police or state collaborators have not been treated well. 2: Regarding watching what the police are doing to demonstrators. There will be trained legal observers on the streets during the demos, plus many different stakeholders carrying cameras. But to imply some kind of balance between the power of an individual vs. the power of a police officer is frankly ridiculous. In the context of political demonstrations under the government we have today, the reality is that the police hold the balance of power. For proof, look no further than the police complaints/accountability system. Perhaps you could fathom this as a reason why people are demonstrating in the first place?

 

1. Oh I am sure. I would get called a race traitor by some. I would get accused of whoring myself to police officers. I'd probably even get accused of being an undercover police officer. That's IF someone doesn't physically assault me because I am infringing on their right to freedom of expression? Their right to vandalize? Really put the boots to me for being a "collaborator".

2. My basic point is that there will be scores of people with cameras ready to catch police officers in the act of assaulting protesters. I'm down with that 100%. They need to be held accountable. Cops shouldn't be above the law (I know often times they are) cameras and taking proof of their action is a way to even out the score.

I don't differentiate between police breaking the law or anyone else.  If I saw a cop smashing out your tail light you're damn right I would report it and if I can take a picture of video for proof. On the same note if I saw some kids of the street smashing tailights I would do the very same. Report it.  Now because it's "a protest" I'm suposed to believe that breaking the law is okay? If I report a criminal action to the police I'm a rat and a narc?

I keep asking this question and it keeps going unanswered- maybe you can give me an answer.

If tomorrow someone smashes the window out of your shop(car/house) would you want the police involved? Would you want whoever did it to be reported to the police?

Assuming you say yes, why is the G20 summit any different?  Why does the summit make breaking the law okay? 

ocsi

SparkyOne wrote:

I keep asking this question and it keeps going unanswered- maybe you can give me an answer.

If tomorrow someone smashes the window out of your shop(car/house) would you want the police involved? Would you want whoever did it to be reported to the police?

Assuming you say yes, why is the G20 summit any different?  Why does the summit make breaking the law okay? 

Yes to your first question.

As for your other question, have you ever heard that "war is politics by other means?"  Likewise, rioting is politics by other means.  And there are consequences to both.  

My concern however is that rioting will only justify the billion plus $$$ spent on this event and give Harper an out.

 

SparkyOne

Nevermind Smile

Cytizen H

SparkyOne wrote:

If tomorrow someone smashes the window out of your shop(car/house) would you want the police involved? Would you want whoever did it to be reported to the police?

Assuming you say yes, why is the G20 summit any different?  Why does the summit make breaking the law okay? 

 

Here's how its different. When HBC had its windows broken during the Olympics there was a direct connection between the act and the event. Anyone who cared to look into the connection between HBC, the olympics, and the issues being raised by demonstrators would see that this was a symbolic act. Likewise, when banks or Starbucks have their windows broken at events like the G20, the symbolism is clear. That is not to say I support it, but that's how its different from someone breaking my front window on a monday.

And, for the first question, if I woke up and found my window broken I would not call the police. If I saw someone breaking someone else's window, I would try and intervene from a safe distance. I would not call the police. I don't think that the police would adequtely be able to deal with the situation and I wouldn't want to give them a reason to get involved with my life, and wouldn't want to foist them upon anyone else. It is similar to this: In my circles, people with children have been told that, if they are lost, they should find a mother with a child and ask them for help. They are not taught to seek a police officer (as I was when i was a kid). This is because of the mistrust of police. I don't think it's unjustified.

Oh, and if someone was breaking a window that had a sign in it that said "fuck the poor!" or "pillage the earth", I would cheer them on. RBC might as well have that sign in their window.

Edit= Wording changed to "pillage the earth"

Pages