G8/G20: It's coming

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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"