Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
eeroborroc

G20 Protests

Recommended Posts

Dude they are being restricted (for a start) in public space, to quell this type of dissent is totalitarian. Plus they aren't anti-globalists, they just want the movement to be as fair as it can be rather than something that consolidates hegemony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A riot is the language of the unheard."

-- Martin Luther King Jr.

"Dr. King knew there must be justice-economic justice and social justice," says Hooks. "He knew there had to be justice for the voiceless. Didn't he remind us that a riot is the cry of the unheard? Dr. King would never countenance riots, but he would at least understand the rage at the deplorable conditions that caused the riots.

"So today he would say let us provide jobs, improve housing conditions, and promote better communication with police and other law enforcement agencies," says Hooks. "Wanton law and order must stop. Respect for all, whether rich or poor, Black or White, must be the rule."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...v48/ai_13304100

Edited by nabraxas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see the chicken and the egg argument "well maybe they wouldn't turn up gearing for a fight if they knew they could have their voice heard"...

But in the end I agree with danemacca, just because the extreme left is 'left', doesn't make them any less retarded and irritatingly irrational than the extreme right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they weren't 'restricted' do you really think they would have merrily marched on their way and happily sung songs of freedom? Of course not, that’s utter ignorance!

Why would they (the majority of those ‘rioting’) turn up to a peaceful protest wearing jumpsuits and hiding their identity behind masks and bandannas?

I’m not bagging on the majority, freedom of speech and the right to protest is a great thing. But a handful of fuckwits destroyed all credibility.

I never said it would have been a peaceful protest if they hadn't have been confined by police. On the contrary it is likely that, should the police have been absent, some of the angrier protesters would have wanted the blood of the suits who are responsible for the consolidation of widespread unhappiness, sickness, death etc.

From what I saw, and in my experience, the protestors in jumpsuits and so on were dressed as such to attract attention, not to hide their identity, also the ones wearing jumpsuits were not the violent people in the footage. As for the people wearing bandana's over their faces, this may have been to hide their identity so that they could not be later prosecuted for their actions. Alternatively it may have been to minimise the damage the police could do with tear gas, capsicum spray and other painful strategies they enjoy loosing upon people even in peaceful protest. Would you say it is unreasonable for police to also "hide their identity" and protect themselves with helmets etc?

What needs to be understood is that freedom of speech doesn't mean a whole lot when no-one is listening. This was not an "irrational" movement by the "extreme left", it was a legitimate action which turned violent and was subsequently cast by the media as a violent action by "the left". This is a ridiculous claim to believe. The group was not a homogeneous set of people (read: lefties), there were Indigenous peoples, environmentalists, humanitarians, punks, and countless other "types" there, involved in different types of action for many different reasons. To reduce the group to violent anti-globalists misses the point, which is precisely what is in the media's interest.

Besides this, if you have seen police behaviour at protests your view of so-called violent protestors might not be so narrow. Don't believe that the bins you saw being thrown and the police officers' "suspected broken wrist" were the only assaults that took place.

As Martin Luther King said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable". Please don't take this simply as a bunch of "extreme leftists" looking to fight for the sake of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ones in the white jumpsuits where hardcore left wing activists from around australia and overseas who wanted media coverage whilst the ones doing the most damage where probably just teens wanted cheap thrills.

I agree with their aims but don't necessarily agree with their actions. Attacking police horses is pretty damn low in my opinion. But the protesting space was not sufficiently close enough to the event, it was pretty obvious the victorian police force where more interested in keeping protestors away from the summit than providing a balance between freedom of speech and safety of the people attending the summit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it wasn't for the rioters we wouldn't even know about the G7/8/920 meetings in the media. So, while hurting a horse is really stupid, if I still had the guts I'd be out there creating a fraccas too. In my younger years I often did.

Not that I agree with the far left mind you! But the civilised Bonos and Bob Browns of this world can be easily ignored, while the white jumpsuits can't. The radicals make sure that the Bonos and Browns at least get some media time and some face time with the people who run the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I see I am wrong that the white jumpsuits were causing damage. I still don't agree that the (relatively small) amount of violence and vandalism should overshadow the reason they were doing this. And I still believe that protection of identity is a legitimate practise when they are at risk of being "brough to justice" in a system they might not beleive in and haven't opted into.

I was not at the event so I don't know if the majority of police were in riot gear. From the televised news reports and from previous experience a lot of police wear helmets etc. Not a lot need to, batons are very hard and capsicum spray really hurts. In fact, the only protest I have been to where there were not police in riot gear present were the Cronulla "riots" and what a beautiful day of free speech that was. Funny, the types of free speech which aren't belittled as a bunch of vagrants trying to ruin a city's reputation.

The police are extremely aware of where cameras and media representatives are, and they know their rights and restrictions in these cases. If you have ever been to a protest without a media presense you will know the level of brutality these events can reach. I don't know where your experience about police seldom using offensive tactics, but this is certainly not my experience. Certainly helmets are used by police as a method of protecting their identity and well as protecting their head, don't be so naive to think that the police are a righteous squad attending the event to try to keep the police. Your attitude is understandable in that the injuries of protestors don't often make the news, but as you admitted, the media is less than half the story.

I think the underlying point that you and I disagree on here is that I do not support the forcible safe passage of members of the G20 in the face of public outrage over the horrendous crimes these people commit. The fact is that the arbritrary and self-appointed power of the police is something one can choose to accept and live with, or something one can work to live around. If you think its more admirable to sit on your couch watching the news and whinging about the bloody lefties than it is to get out and try in any way you can to argue that the GDP is not worth murdering and enslaving thousands for then you are entitled to do so. Myself I would say that despite the violence these people are doing something admirable, if the police want to bring horses to a protest they are almost as stupid as the people who attacked the creatures.

You have a very black and white view of the matter. There is not a choice between Australia being as it is and being a "third world" nation. Do you realise that the so-called "third world" exists in former colonies of wealthy oligarchical nations? Suprise suprise, the "lucky country" you are praising is only wealthy because it has stolen its wealth in resources. Being committed enough to buy the Green Left doesn't give you any license to critique a homogeneous left. From what I have read this paper is full of simpletons propaganda, there are much better journals on global commerce which show that the current system is unsustainable. It is precisely the left who are not taking our society for granted, the reason people protest at events like the G20 is because they realise how good we have it, and how shitty the nations we are supported by can be. The simple underlying truth is that we are consuming resources at a rate that cannot sustain itself, Australia is in twice the amount of foreign debt that Argentina was at the time of its collapse of economy. We are taking more than is available, at an increasing rate. Something has to be done, and if it means smashing the window of a police van that is blocking people from being heard then big deal, this is not a supreme sacrifice in light of the state of our nation and the world.

Again, don't look at this as a conflict between the "left" and "right". There are many different people of different minds involved, the choice of your opinion on the matter does not have to be either of the options of the hardworking business person or the insane leftie that the media points to. I for one am in support of the protests but am not a "leftie". Simplifying to these positions just gives an easy way to skirt the issues of the protests and argue about the legitimacy of the action, as we've been doing. It would be far more productive to talk instead about why the G20 committee is progressive or damaging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suprise suprise the media outcry over the poor hapless police being brutalised by out of control leftwing zombie mutants of middle eastern appearance looks to be resulting in the awarding of "tougher new laws" for police officers to "keep the peace". Notice the shocking police injuries of a broken wrist and bruising but no mention of the injuries of protestors which included more than broken bones.

ninemsn story

2011_g202_a.jpg "Stop trying to defend yourself against my baton, hippie!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Call me a capitalist swine….but the G20 rioters (not to be confused with peaceful protestors) are absolute vermin!

That does nothing to support anti globalisation whatsoever.

Indeed. Which is why i reckon they were agent provocateurs, working for ASIO or the military... Why else were not ONE of the so-called "arterial bloc" arrested? It certainly gave the police a good reason to bash anyone they could reach with their batons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed. Which is why i reckon they were agent provocateurs, working for ASIO or the military... Why else were not ONE of the so-called "arterial bloc" arrested? It certainly gave the police a good reason to bash anyone they could reach with their batons.

Killing two birds with one stone, discreditation of protesters and a training day, awesome work fellas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On another topic....why attack a police horse. Fuck...did the horse sell out too?

You ever been stood on by a horse, hero? The oprotestors aren't the ones using them as weapons, blame the cops for using animals in such an archaic and cruel manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would they (the majority of those ‘rioting’) turn up to a peaceful protest wearing jumpsuits and hiding their identity behind masks and bandannas?

because they work for ASIO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed. Which is why i reckon they were agent provocateurs, working for ASIO or the military... Why else were not ONE of the so-called "arterial bloc" arrested? It certainly gave the police a good reason to bash anyone they could reach with their batons.

lol, that was my first thought... Listened to a lot of DK's in high school :)

If you demonstrate

Against somebody we like

I'll slip on my wig

And see if I can start a riot

Transform you to an angry mob

All your leaders go to jail for my job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chronik Fatigue - Have I ever been stood on by a horse? No, this hero has never been stood on by a horse. I make a habit of not intimidating them from behind like simplton. They are hardly used as weapons.

Oh yeah? And how many times have ou been in protests where the cops ride horse (unprovoked) into crowds. Just try it, then try to tell me they are not weapons. Why the fuck do you think cavalry charges were so spectacularly successful for hundreds of years? Why don't you ask Patricia Karveles, a journalist for the Australian, about horses and protestors. She had her pelvis crushed when police charged protestors with horses.

I honestly don't know whether you are being serious in your comments about 'Arterial Bloc' being made up of ASIO/Militarty, or just taking the piss out of what I was hoping would be a serious thread. If you do believe such conspiracy nonsense you are a fool. I'm sure that the Australian government staged the Port Authur massacre just to disarm the population as well, or Elvis flew home with ET. Pfft. Go back to your bong dude.
No you are a ool if you think intelligence agencies are above that sort of thing, they have a rich history of it. Ever heard of COINTELPRO in the US for instance?
gents provocateurs are also used against political opponents. Here, it has been documented that provocateurs deliberately carry out or seek to incite counter-productive and/or ineffective acts, in order to foster public disdain for the group and provide a pretext for aggression; and to worsen the punishments its members are liable for. Terrorists sometimes act as agents provocateurs when they seek to provoke government repression that they hope will alienate their potential constituency from the government in question, and thus increase support for themselves (as the opponents of the government in question). In this sense, provocation may be combined with endorsement terrorism.

Within the United States the COINTELPRO program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had FBI agents posing as political radicals in order to disrupt the activities of radical political groups in the U.S., such as the Black Panthers, Ku Klux Klan, and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. The activities of agents provocateurs against dissidents in Imperial Russia was one of the grievances that led to the Russian Revolution of 1917.

New York Police officers acted as agents provocateurs during protests against the Republican National Convention in New York City. In at least two instances, actions of undercover police officers posing as demonstrators changed the outcome of protest actions there, leading to scuffles between demonstrators and uniformed police, and arrests of demonstrators.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur

So basically you are getting all self righteous about topics that you know squat about. Where do you get your facts from anyway, Today Tonight?

Further reading, infiltration and surveillence on community groups in Victoria, your tax dollars hard at work undermining radicals like the Teddy bears Picnic.

http://www.activistrights.org.au/surveilla...f_activists.asp

Edited by Chronik Fatigue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chronik Fatigue - Have I ever been stood on by a horse? No, this hero has never been stood on by a horse. I make a habit of not intimidating them from behind like simplton. They are hardly used as weapons.

Further reading on police tactics, including the use of horses

Police have used horses against activists throughout history. The Police Mounted Branch often is seen at protests, marches or rallies in Melbourne. They are commonly used to push groups of activists away to clear an area or as containment lines to prevent access. As a form of crowd-control they can be an extremely dangerous and unwieldy tool.

When you are conducting police liaison meetings, always stress that horses should not be used at the protest for this reason.

The presence of a horse amongst activists creates a sense of alarm as hard feet look for purchase amongst human limbs and horse flanks batter the crowd. Like all Police, mounted Police have tools such as batons at their disposal.

Public opinion is very hostile to suggestions that protesters have caused injury or harm to police horses. Police sometimes maintain that protesters have used pins or marbles against horses. Whether these claims are true or not they undermine the legitimacy of protests and are seen to justify a harsh police response.

http://www.activistrights.org.au/police_tactics.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hullo this is your friendly neighbourhood mod speaking...

This is an interesting and heated discussion. That's fine.

I draw the line when the name-calling and insinuations start, that really get the discussion nowhere, fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah and I'd just like to remind everyone participating, there is no constitutional right to freedom of speech in Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly zero. Never have I seen police charge 'in a cavalry fashion' into a crowd of 'innocent' unprovoking protesters. This is Australia, not China.

I used to live next to the mounted police training block in Surry Hills.

Why do you think they use horses? Because they are fast? Because they are easy to park? because they are comfortable? No, there are only two reasons why they use horses: One is height and the second is size/weight. Mounted police are trained mainly for crowd control. This is their primary duty and the only reason for their rather expensive existence.

In the training block they used to mimic crowds of all demeanor and then teach the horses to obey commands. The most common manouvre they practice is to wedge an individual out of a group. You have 10 people all behaving loudly in a group, the horses are trained to walk into the group in a V shape so that the target individual is wedged between two horses, in the area between their bellies and their necks. The horses then move their heads towards each other and the individual as captured. In fact, at speed the individual often sustains mild injuries due to the pressure the horses put against each other. They are not exactly precision instruments.

I have watched them practice this manouvre literally thousands of times. The other thing they practice is a mild variation on this where they face a solid line of usually stationary protestors which the foot soldiers can't penetrate. Because horses are so much higher they can simply put the heads between and over the line and then push forwards. They don't need to charge like cavalry, but a simple walking pace is already enough to cause serious injuries.

As far as them charging unprovoking protestors, please keep in mind that as soon as a protestor is where the cops don't want him to be he is immediately provoking them. ie, a protestor or group of them who have broken thourgh a barrier are immediately regarded as the provocateurs. And yes, they are charged with horses, battons etc.

If a super sized police officer did this he would be disciplined. With horses they get away with it. I never understood this, but this is why mounted police are still being trained and are so important to the police.

I take it from your naive view of these things that you have never actually been at a protest where protestors did not comply with police? It doesn't take much for the police to totally overreact.

If you protest peacefully, your voice is heard and everyone is safe. As soon as you cross that line...riot...provoke authorities..than injuries are bound to occur. If I may be so bold. If the protest remained exactly that, a protest..and not a riot, there would have been zero injuries.

You are right that there would be no injuries if protestors did exactly what the police asks of them. But many people do not feel that their conscience allows them to simply protest within these boundaries as they know very well they won't be heard. Look at the millions of people who protested the iraq war? They were ignored even though in retrospect they were right. Which brings me to the other assumption you made in a previous post, that protestors should be ignored if they are the minority. Well, the majority of australians were against vietnamese refugees coming to australia, the majority of americans did not think it was a good idea to let black people vote, the majority of americans believed that Saddam bombed the World Trade Centre, the majority of Pakistanis believe that rape punishment is just, the majority of australians believed the baby overboard affair, and the majority of australians don't believe in equal rights for gays. Now tell me, is it a good thing for those who kept/keep fighting these fights to simply have their voices drowned out in the media, or was it a good thing that some individuals took things much further and forced action on these matters?

yes, the majority of the population thinks that globalisation is good, but the majority of the population also votes for a prime minister who is dishonest and corrupt, just because he puts a few extra bucks in their pocket. Ethical people can't stand by and simply chant slogans in an out-of-view area of the media circus, while greedy people run the show. They have to make themselves heard.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to the feedback from demonstration organisers. They themselves admit this incident was a complete fuck up. As soon as it got out of hand, all credibility for 'the cause' was lost and turned into a 'media circus'.

yeah, but it got the cause exposure. There is no such thing as bad publicity with things like this. No one is going to change their mind about globalisation as a result of seeing protestors behave one way or the other, however many people will be forced to at the very least wonder why these people are so passionate and maybe that will change their mind. Or at least make them think. Fact is most people don't even think about what globalisation is doing or the consequences it has on others.

Most of the great popular protests did not achieve results until they got violent. Whether this is anti logging, anti nuclear, anti globalisation, or anti pollution. The mainstream demonises the protestors and their methods, but it is such passionate people and their problematic methods who saved the tasmanian rainforest, and later forests in all other states, who got chemical plants shut down or controlled, who limited the US defense spread in australia, and who made the world sit up and pay attention to aboriginal issues, etc etc. The list is literally endless. These were NOT catalysed by peaceful protests and in retrospect we need to thank these people, just like we will probably one day thank the white teletubbies for drawing attention to global greed.

Chronik...I am uttely speechless at and cannot comprehend how someone who seems fairly intellectual can actually post such rubbish, let alone believe it. If you would be able to provide some evidence to support your claim hat the Arterial Bloc are some undercover military faction I'd gladly have a read. Heck I'd even make a public apology if it seemed half convincing. But until then, Im am somewhere between perplexed and amused.

People in the 60's and 70's were also shocked and bemused by such wild statements. problem is that 10 years later most of it turned out to be true. These were common government tactics against protestors in all western countries from the 60's right through to the late 80's. Many are well documented even in the mainstream. Most were excused by the pinkophobia of the cold war. But that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Most western countries have moved on from such tactics, however just like the Howard government has taken us back a couple of decades in ethics, education and apathy, they have also employed many public opinion forming tools that were popular 20 years ago. I have no idea of the background of this paticular incident, but I think the concept is definitely plausible. Anyone denying it's possibility would have to be very ignorant of recent history.

btw, I am not anit all globalisation. there are good aspects to globalisation, such as the internet, and a better cultural understanding outside our own immediate sphere. There are plenty more. But there are also many bad aspects to it, like the exploitation of natural resources at the expense of the poorest people on earth, the amassing of wealth in a few select global corporations, and the political influence wielded by the strongest of the economic states. So, I am not anti globalisation, but I am anti greed. The G7/8/20 meetings symbolise this greed for me, while having little impact on the good aspects of globalisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×