A Debate on Protest Tactics - part 2

I absolutely agree that Tommy Taylor's story was incredibly moving and of interest to the general public.

The media was there, recording him, and the public will never see it if they have their way.

Citizen H, Harper used the violence done to justify the billion dollar security bill, that is something that the black bloc helped him with and in doing so acted as friends of Harper.   Are you a friend of Harper?

ennir wrote:

Citizen H, Harper used the violence done to justify the billion dollar security bill, that is something that the black bloc helped him with and in doing so acted as friends of Harper.   Are you a friend of Harper?

 

ennir, Citizyn was detained. You can read about it, and I suggest you do.  I don't think he and Steve are buddies.

But, just on your point, people can also look at the billion spent and it didn't even prevent what it was supposed to.   People will see it the way they want to.

Cytizen H wrote:

ennir wrote:

One can be an unwitting friend.

 

or an unwitting fool....

I would not be so unkind as to suggest that.

You know, I hate to be all Karl Rove or Dr. Strangelove about this, but what's done is done, and I think the only way to screw this up is to get all focused on what happened right now. 

There are issues to bring to the fore.

We're all mad at Blair, and we're all wrapped up in conspiracy theories or, just plain pissed to the max.

But the simple truth here does well.   Blair abandoned his city when they needed him most.  He was derelict in his duty.  

I wouldn't waste time trying to figure out if the arrests and misstreatment of detainees was part of a plan.  It happened, and it happened because Blair wasn't in control of his police force-- a police force that was made up of yahoo cops from across the province who bore no allegiance to Blair administratively or personally.

So, derelect in his duty to protect the city and not in control of his police force.

Damning enough.

Self evident enough.

On the issue of compensation to businesses, Harper is retreating and playing coy.   That has to be hit on hard.  Again, simple truth, self evident.  And, it drives a wedge between him and a demographic that traditionally supports Conservatives.

David Miller, supposed progressive, as indicated above is simply on the wrong side.  You can let it slide because you think he's a lame duck mayor, leaving politics and public life, but I think this is an albatros that has to be hung on his neck.    The man has ambitions and he has to pay for his perfidiousness and utter betrayal.    Not for revenge, but for the object lesson to whoever the incomming Mayor might be.

The same can be said for not only Dalton McGinty, but his entire Vichy Cabinet.

 I believe Ennir is quite correct to suggest that in effect, these types of actions help drive further segments of the public to the right.

Only if you stand by and let it happen.

In the comming days, there will be 900 stories being told at the cottage.  Middle Class people who wouldn't before believe that the police could be so brutal and sadistic hearing about Ruth and George's little Emy-- remember her with those cute pigtails-- being threatened with rape and humiliated by police.... and, come to think, the last time I got a ticket the cop was fairly rude to poor old George here, so I can believe it.....

900 stories times two.

Times two again.

Times two again.

Times two again.

you all are better at math than me.

As usual, I couldn't disagree more with Cytizen H.  Any violent tactic - whether outright violent (smashing, destroying, hitting, throwing stuff, etc) or provocative of a police response (pushing on a police line, yelling at police... getting right up to them and in their face, etc.) has the sole effect of creating a violent spectacle - which does NOTHING good to advance any messages.  I believe Ennir is quite correct to suggest that in effect, these types of actions help drive further segments of the public to the right.  What do they associate with opposition to the g20 - but violent spectacles?  What good is that?  Absolutely no good at all.  Building nonviolent mass movements would help provide a centre for movements that is built around some principles... this is the MLK/Gandhi way of doing things, and contrary to what Cytizen H or other violence-supporters might think, they are mutually exclusive with violent/violent spectacle tactics.  Violent tactics and support for them (aka. 'diversity of tactics' in its current, failed iteration rather than a nonviolent DoT) helps in effect to marginalize critical left, green, and indigenous messages by taking the discursive space away from the mass of nonviolent protesters and displacing it by drawing media attention onto both violent tactics and the useless spectacles they engender... Yes, I do think that these spectacles might be cathartic for some, in that they provide a space to vent rage through violent tactics - for others the indulgence in violence may be perverted 'fun', along for the ride to smash things... the 'protective function' that is cited for the BB would be completely unnecessary if as a movement we did not invite the space for creating violent spectacles premised on a lack of respect for police, fundamentally speaking. The current, defunct version of DoT accomplishes this, and we saw it in action from the TCMN, including in providing webspace for SOAR's press release professing that 'stuff will get smashed'.  

But underlying the preference for violent tactics are, I would argue, usually anti-state philosophies that have no room whatsoever for 'the state', and objectify the police as a target for hate, as representatives of the state, etc.  Thus comes the fundamental lack of respect for the police I've written about, but which we need.... (despite the critical necessity to hold police - and more crucially those who give the orders and the mandates - accountable under substantive public scrutiny for episodes of breaches of trust and abuse of authority).. . a fundamental disrespect for the police tends to lead to tactics which create violent spectacles that provoke police responses.... which then catch a lot of people in the crossfire.  To this end, I wish I could convince you, Cytizen H, that yes, as Ennir suggests the black block tactics do in fact drive people to the right, and in the process demoralize good sections of the nonviolent left/green/indigenous movement - both positive goals for the Harperites... this is why I've argued that they in fact helped to protect the G20.  (by the way, I'm not trying to draw discussion to my blog here... the comments function is cumbersome there... I merely reference these arguments to remind folks where I'm coming from... many of you know already, but I know there's different folks coming on all the time..)

Tommy_Paine wrote:

ennir wrote:

Citizen H, Harper used the violence done to justify the billion dollar security bill, that is something that the black bloc helped him with and in doing so acted as friends of Harper.   Are you a friend of Harper?

 

 

ennir, Citizyn was detained. You can read about it, and I suggest you do.  I don't think he and Steve are buddies.

That's a very odd sort of argument, Tommy. What does someone's detention have to do with whether their views and positions help Harper or not? Cytizen H is ardently defending actions that, if left unchallenged, will destroy the mass movement. The account of his detention may explain a lot of things, but his stands here certainly do no harm to Stephen Harper.

That's a very odd sort of argument, Tommy

It was a very odd statement.

One thing I've noticed in other simlar (and often much worse) events is that when the state unlawfully arrests and beats up media people, it generally results in bad media for the state.

<this interface>

I believe there are people who wouldn't say crap even with a mouthful. And they are the ones who should probably stay home when the proles declare independence day.

And I don't think the Toronto Sun is simply media in this city. Its audience target is working class. Its prior editorial position was rabidly pro-police.

That is interesting. I believe I read elsewhere (I can't remember where at this point) that someone noticed increased police presence in Hamilton.

Well, I didn't walk all of downtown, or walk through the entire crowd at the forks, so I could well be wrong.   Just usually I see cops on duty in the crowd.

And, the Hamilton person's observations could be correct, and mine also.  Which would show that each city's police chiefs are handling things as they feel they should, and no blanket order one way or another about crowd control this weekend has been handed down from Dalton Petain or members of his Vichy Cabinet.

.

.

.

Cytizen H has left us, but they are still accountable for their misguided and destructive advocacy for violent tactics - which do NOTHING good toward struggling to advance left/antiwar/indigenous/green perspectives toward social transformation...  

I think it's necessary to include some 'condemning' here about the most recent destructive, useless act using violent tactics:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec/quebec-police-mum-about-nature-of-trois-rivires-bomb/article1626227/

I would like to know what the most prominent self-styled anarchist in Quebec (possibly in Canada) - Jaggi Singh, has to say about this act.  I would like to know if he thinks it's an effective act in advocating for the issues the bombers claim to be struggling to represent.  Their embrace of violent tactics will only drive the public to the right.... by labelling themselves with left, antiwar, green and indigenous labels, they are quite effectively helping to drive a wedge between these issues and the broader public - holding back nonviolent movement building very effectively.  It, like the RBC firebombing, needs to be roundly condemned on all sides.  I agree with this globe commentator (and the prof they consulted) in ascribing an anti-state mentality behind the act...  

A minor update: I previously estimated 3000 people participated in the Toronto rally on Canada Day calling for a public inquiry. Interestingly enough, the Facebook page for the event has 3196 people that had confirmed their intent to go (along with another 1864 'maybes').

Suck on that, TorStar Inc. 

I think the turnout Canada Day started out slow, but grew to the numbers we saw Monday night in front of police headquarters. I would estimate 3,000-5,000 at either event.

I know I couldn't get close enough to the speakers either time, so it was next to impossible to hear them. I see this as a very positive sign! (Though organizers of such events would do well to consider this kind of reality, and think of ways of including everyone who turns up.)

It is clear that this bombing is in a long tradition of such acts in Quebec.  I think the FLQ crisis, while the violence was despicable, did more for Quebec independence as a political force than any other event.  It of course was not the murder or bombings that caused the sea shift but rather the over reaction of Trudeau and the middle of the night arrests of peaceful Canadians working for change. 

The peaceful protest in Toronto is typical of protests.  I have gone to a number each and every year for decades and they are seldom reported except in passing and the number of people in the marches is always underestimated. That is the reality of protesting in Canada for anyone new to the game. I march because it makes me feel good not because I think it is going to change any politician's right wing policies. I have been in antiwar demonstrations that approached 100,000 with no violence and in the end there was no change in policy. In those days while they underestimated the crowds they were so big that the demonstrations got reported on but seldom was there any real analysis of the anti-war message.

In BC as recently as 2002 we had over 50,000 on the lawns of the legislature.  An impressive show of union organizing and peaceful protest. Eight years later we have the same government and those same unions are still waiting for the government to defeat itself. 

http://www.workingtv.com/[email protected]

While I will continue to march I find it odd that people think that large non-violent protests are going to change anything.  Now I admit that we have never seen protests in the million person range so I guess there is hope that if we get to marches of half a million and more the oligarchy might listen to us.  Slim hope but hope none the less I guess.

Ripple wrote:

Jury clears activists who broke into Brighton arms factory

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/30/activists-arms-factory-acquitted

..

more on the smishy-smashy group above:

http://www.smashedo.org.uk

Who cares about what the so called Black Bloc does. What is important is that whatever they do should have absolutely no impact on your fundamental human rights.

Indeed, I agree that people do have the moral right to express their protest through unlawful activities that do not harm other people directly. However, incumbent in that is the fact that this is a personal decision and one where those persons recognize that the outcome may be that they will face the consequences of state repression.

On the other hand others should also have the right to express their opinion in a lawful manner, and as such they also have rights. The fact that some people are engaging in vandalism to make their point in no way undermines the rights of those who choose to express themselves in a lawful manner.

What has actually happened here, apparently, is that the state has used the unlawful acts of some to repress the lawful acts of others, and indeed did very little to stop any ulawful acts at all, concerning themselves with intimidating and arresting law abiding citizens.

This is the essential point that must be understood about the events of the G20 demonstrations.

My only real problem with them is that many of them are really smug, disrespectful and sanctimonious ego maniacs who believe it is their god given right to impose their view of revolutionary action on everyone else. In fact, they are generally annoying to work with and divisive.

I keenly remember how they once used the opportunity of an Al Quds Palestine rally to try and make their point about their god-given right to "confront the state" in the form that suited them, despite the fact that they might very well have been putting a number of persons with tentative immigration status at risk of being deported to a place where privation and possible torture and death might await them.

Other than that they are fine. If they want "diversity" of tactics they should go and do that. There really isn't any need for them to bother anyone else with it.

In the face of severe repression we do not really need diversity of tactics. What we need is unity of purpose and mutual respect.