Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Violence at the summit

Page: (1)2 3 4

08:43 / 17.06.01

Swedish Police attempt to defend their use of live ammunition.

Tony Blair may believe that violent protest has no place in democracy but it is an unfortunate fact that violent protest has been accompanied most major leaps forward in ‘democracy’. From the suffragettes to the poll tax the only kind of protest that appears to get noticed is violent protest. Kind of scary when you think about it.

So continuing on a little from the violence threads in the pre-reboot barbrlith - how do people feel the events of this weekend have impacted on our right and need to protest.

17:26 / 17.06.01

Dragging the thread softly....

I think maybe the deal with violent protest is that it's forced by the system, if you like. There is definitely a need for protest, but the fact that the system doesn't allow constructive protest, or maybe not even the system, but just humanity as such, the fact that compromise is so tainted and dirty that wills must clash, I guess that neccesitates violence. (I think I mis-spelled neccesitate..., not that I mean or think compromise is horrid, it's just that concensus seems impossible given the wide array of opinion. So do I believe in violent protest. No. But I understand it and think it's neccesary. I've forgotten what the question was....

I don't think the events will have that much impact, look at Tianeman Square, (and I know I messed the spelling of that up..., that hasn't stopped violent protest happening world wide, and that was a peaceful protest. I think that's all I have...confusion...

17:59 / 17.06.01

Well, being in the centre of attention, as it were, I must say I think Tony Blair is largely right. Especially when the protests are as vague as they are here: anti-capitalism, anti-eu, anti-establishment,anti-bush. I don't want to say that violence can never ever be justified in a democracy. But not like this.

18:39 / 17.06.01

Right, I see these protests at summits all the time now, and I'm afraid I don't even know what they're for anymore.

Recently I've been wondering whose side I am on. This may largly be as a result of the way protests are covered in the media but, on the whole, I am becoming deeply, deeply weary of what seems to be little more than juvenile displays attempting to undermine a global democracy. Protests are all well and good, but if you don't even let polititians do their jobs how can you assess your impact?

I think we all need to calm down for a little while. Maybe concentrate more on our own backyards, otherwise we'll come back from the campaigns to find the kingdom ruined. Sorta.

18:41 / 17.06.01

quote: Especially when the protests are as vague as they are here
That's what makes me uncomfortable with it too - if there was a specific agenda I would have much more sympathy with it. I do recognise that there's a 'general' anger at the way the world is moving but it's not really good enough to run around shouting 'No! I hate everything!'. It doesn't get any message over to anyone who doesn't already agree with the 'anti-globalisation' movement. Or rather, it does: that the anti-globalists are just a bunch of pissed off kids who don't know what they want. I know that's not true, before anyone shoots me down for it: but there has to be a more effective way of getting the message across?
That said, there's no way the police can justify shooting people - I think they've panicked and overreacted. Is that guy still alive, does anyone know?

18:52 / 17.06.01

He's alive, but only just. Last I heard, he was in a coma. He has been operated upon five times I think.

Yup, I agree. Completely unjustifiable. The police obviously wasn't prepared for what was coming. Or maybe they kept a (relatively) low profile due to criticism for a previous raid in Malmoe this year (avoiding water cannons and tear gas).

I dunno.

18:54 / 17.06.01

How could they not be prepared? This is becoming par for the course, surely?

Ellis

19:00 / 17.06.01

The Swedes actually put up protesters in the local schools for £2.00 a night. How naive.

Strange that water cannons and batton rushes were banned/ illegal yet guns were ok.

I just think the police were expecting a peaceful protest and it got way out of hand.

You throw stones at ppl with guns though and you're gonna get shot. I just hope if the boy dies he doesn't become a martyr.

[ 19-06-2001: Message edited by: Ellis ]

19:05 / 17.06.01

Yup, and by showing the receipt from the school they'd get free public transport. Naive indeed.

Water cannons and tear gas is not normal equipment for the Swedish police, whereas guns are.

uncle retrospective

19:10 / 17.06.01

quote:Originally posted by Lee:
How could they not be prepared? This is becoming par for the course, surely?

Did you see the Justice minister on Sky? He was dealing with the complaint that the cops didn't have rubber bullets and other anti-riot tools. Just guns.

He replied that it didn't matter it was the rioters fault and that they pretty much deserved what they got. And he believed every word he said.

Scared me. Did you see the guy who go shot? He was running away from the cops. Nuts.

19:18 / 17.06.01

quote: Did you see the guy who go shot? He was running away from the cops. Nuts

In the picture I saw, it looked like he was running at them throwing bricks. But I just saw a series of stills online so I'm not sure.

[ 17-06-2001: Message edited by: Ariadne ]

19:23 / 17.06.01

I've seen the film, and it shows the kid throwing bricks at a group of policemen trying to protect a presumable unconsious policeman lying on the ground. Then he turns and runs slowly away a couple of meters, and is shot. It is not easy to say if he was going away or just going to get more bricks.

ynh

19:37 / 17.06.01

This is excellent. We have as our first Switchboard thread one that invalidates the actions of dedicated activists.

Steve, protest events get coverage. At some point the media can't ignore them. Protestors often also have their own recorders because they're aware that the coverage they do get will be harsh.

Harry, we can't even get 30 people to agree on something on this board. How do you expect to get thousands of protestors to have the same priorities?

Lee, I'm betting it is the media coverage you've seen of the protests that's confusing you. If you hear what a bunch of disorganized violent irresponsible kids they are often enough, it will sink in. The protests are, incidentally, focused and localized around summits that impact global affairs. We've been letting politicians do their jobs for quite a long time, and they've been quietly fucking things up for the majority of the world's inhabitants. Last check my backyard looked fine, but people were still working 18 hour days under horrific conditions, the US still rejected the Kyoto accords, &c.

Ariadne, I won't attempt to shoot you down. However, you need to recognize that one of the best ways to discredit this "global" movement is to attack them on traditional political grounds: "They don't have a single issue." Of course not, but they do appear to have a shortlist of common enemies that allows them to coalesce in certain places. Each of these individuals has priorities and an agenda. Violence is central to few of them. Given that none of these people have multibillion dollar media apparati or leadership of a nation, what would you suggest as a better way to get their message out?

[question]Did the schools suffer any damage? Or the public transit?[/question]

[ 17-06-2001: Message edited by: [Your Name Here] ]

19:44 / 17.06.01

Scary thought, imagining the Barbelith Underground protesting on the streets. And then starting to argue. Some, maybe [Your Name Here] attacks the bewildered police...

No, I don't think any schools or public transports were destroyed, other than the bus stops. Mostly, shops were attacked.

20:08 / 17.06.01

quote:what would you suggest as a better way to get their message out?

Writing coherent arguments in the press, making their point - if they go to the mainstream press with a reasoned, articulate argument they WILL get a hearing,if only a brief one.
And as for politicians not having changed anything, are you suggesting we just give up democracy and go for mob rule? Anarchy? I certainly don't want to live that way.

ynh

20:24 / 17.06.01

quote:Originally posted by Ariadne:

Writing coherent arguments in the press, making their point - if they go to the mainstream press with a reasoned, articulate argument they WILL get a hearing,if only a brief one.

Countless, meaningless, breif hearings: the letter to the editor as social resistance. I think you're right, after a fshion. Each of the protestors should be writing to a news agaency and an elected official daily[/hyperbole]. But that doesn't make the point in a better way, it only supplements the possibly confusing television images of people in bird suits and brick-throwers. Press articles won't get people talking like thousands-strong people presence does.

quote:

And as for politicians not having changed anything, are you suggesting we just give up democracy and go for mob rule? Anarchy? I certainly don't want to live that way.

I'm not suggesting that at all. I ma suggesting that the protestors are not protesting democracy. Rather they're protesting governments and corporations who have the power to make the world a little safer, a little cleaner, and little more equitable, but don't. Protests are leveled at summits whose purpose is simply to further entrench the powers and policies that be. These summits have been occuring for decades, yet none of us ever paid them any mind. These protests foreground the issue in the best (visual) way possible: the media are forced to cover them, and to explain to some degree why they're occuring.

20:28 / 17.06.01

The nice thing was hearing Jaques Chirac give the Swedish premier an earful about the police's tactics because "someone might get hurt." I can't believe that politicians are idiot evil compromised bastards. I don't believe they are the enemy. They clearly have a hard enough job to do as it is, and are trying to deal with the fact that that job, and the world they do it in is changing. I don't support everything they do and I don't believe everything they say, and I believe we all have a right to protest their decisions. But violent activists help no-one's cause, and fuck up predominately peaceful protests for a concerned, and generally pacifist, majority. Gatherings at summits are getting progressively more violent. Authorities continue to clamp down to make protests harder to attend. A vicious circle develops, resentment builds up on every side, and sooner or later, people die. Add to the potential for tragedy the simple fact that violent media-hogging clashes deflect attention from the real issues at stake, so that both the summits and the protests become ineffectual, and I can only wonder what, if anything is achieved?

I'm sorry, this may seem like a pointless post. It is a pointless post, because it has no alternatives to offer, but my own observation is that protests are having no discernable positive effect and need to be put on the back burner for a little while. If only to allow the hysteria surrounding them to calm down.

20:30 / 17.06.01

quote: These protests foreground the issue in the best (visual) way possible: the media are forced to cover them, and to explain to some degree why they're occuring.

Yes, okay, I can see your point there. (This bloody board - I had gone to bed and then had to get up again to say some more) I do agree with most of the protestors views and that there's a need to get the other viewpoints heard. I just don't know that it's happening, and if anything it's counter-productive when they just look like 'troublemakers' on TV.
This time I am going to bed.... and staying there. Honest.

[ 17-06-2001: Message edited by: Ariadne ]

20:43 / 17.06.01

quote:Originally posted by Ariadne:

I do agree with most of the protestors views and that there's a need to get the other viewpoints heard. I just don't know that it's happening, and if anything it's counter-productive when they just look like 'troublemakers' on TV.

I agree with this - the demonstrators do need to create some kind of a fuss to attract media attention - but there's a fine line between getting news coverage (even if it is misconstrued coverage) and "invoking the wrath of the media."

I feel that the protests have been extremely successful in drawing people's attention to what's going on. I mean, three or so years ago, the WTO/IMF &c were known almost exclusively in economist's circles, now 'the general public' have heard about them and hopefully have some sort of opinion about their actions.

However: (as I finally get to my point) demonstrations can be effective without resorting to violence against others. If the protestors act like drunken football hooligans, they will be portrayed as such and nobody will take them seriously.

[ 17-06-2001: Message edited by: stereodee ]

09:22 / 18.06.01

Go find the fucking Young Republican BB and post there you ratlicking toadies.

Frances Farmer

09:22 / 18.06.01

Was anybody there?

deletia

09:22 / 18.06.01

Go Jackie.

I love the idea that as long as protestors have nice tidy hair and express themselves in a polite and reasonable fashion, then the media will be sympathetic. Of course they will, because the protestors will just be a far less powerful, far less wealthy and far less well organised version of the interests they seek to regulate. Niiiiiice.

09:22 / 18.06.01

Frances, anyone else with brain:
http://sweden.indymedia.org

09:22 / 18.06.01

jeez. they have bricks. obviously that's all it's gonna take to save the planet. better shoot 'em. I don't know what pisses me off more, the evil killer cops or the idea that a thrown rock will achieve anything.

violence is a symptom of the sickness- not the disease, or the cure.

09:22 / 18.06.01

[sheepish] and careless aphorisms can kill. woah. someone shoot me down please, when did I get cynical?[/sheepish]

09:22 / 18.06.01

Best photo of the action so far:

Good Dog

01

09:22 / 18.06.01

They're on the ropes.

We need to step up the pressure.

09:22 / 18.06.01

[There was a big rant here about the stupid boring reactionary elements of this thread but for the fucking life of me, I can't be bothered arguing anymore.]

I second Frances' question: was anyone actually there?

[Okay fine, I'll argue.]

Ariadne, please stop to consider statistics on media ownership and the fact that the media are corporations like the rest of them, and dedicated to with-holding as much power as possible from the population, before you tell people to 'try the mainstream media'. Please go and read some Noam Chomsky, and while you're there, go and spend a little time in Columbia. Or Nicaragua. Or downtown New York. Notica that what's going on in whatever place you're in usually doesn't equate to what the media tells you is going on.

Open your eyes. 'Radical violence' is a media-constructed vector-movement used to make the liberal apologists look good, or look like they're 'doing something constructive'. When in fact most liberals who write for mainstream newspapers, however much they say they 'disagree' with the right-wing corporate fucks, are participating in the very structure which removes any radical political agenda from the playing-field.

09:22 / 18.06.01

Caught both ways: be violent, and be noticed. Be peaceful, be ignored -- (paraphrasing) Hugo Young in the Guardian, last year.

Destroying McDonald's isn't going to change your average punter's mind. If these people who are protesting are *actually* serious about wanting to effect changes to these global institutions -- something I wholeheartedly agree with -- then they're going to need support from said average punter.

indymedia.org is a fabulous resource, but it's the people who are sitting on their arses watching ITN or CNN -- these are the people who need their minds changed, they need to be woken up, because they're not going to read indymedia or schnews or infoshop of their own accord.

So what do you do?

reidcourchie

09:22 / 18.06.01

I read the first half of this thread and assumed I'd come to the wrong web site. Then I look around and all the other threads have gone missing.

For a moment I thought the entire place had been taken over for corporate propaganda. By far and away my favorite bit was:-

Posted by Lee
"I can't believe that politicians are idiot evil compromised bastards. I don't believe they are the enemy. They clearly have a hard enough job to do as it is, and are trying to deal with the fact that that job, and the world they do it in is changing."

No of course not they're hear to help by refusing to lower polution emissions, by antagonising other countries so they can justify arms expenditure, to use your tax money to finance oppressive regimes etc. etc. etc.

Now before you come back at me all pissed off could you give me a demonstrable example of a non corrupt politician?

09:22 / 18.06.01

Who wants to be the bad gut?

The answer is no one.

No politician, not even the 'toxic texan' goes in to their office in the morning and thinks 'hehheheh how can I screw up the world today?' Yes some are more corrupt than others with varying degrees of ethics but each and every one of them believes absolute in what they are doing otherwise they would give up party politics (as people like mo Molam already have)

reidcourchie

09:22 / 18.06.01

Sorry Sleaze I do not for a moment believe that. It's graft, they are getting themselves in a position to feather their own beds and those of their cronies.

Explain to me then why the Toxic Texan would want to put a missle defence system in this day and age?

09:22 / 18.06.01

For heaven's sake, I KNOW that the media coverage is biased - I work in it for god's sake. And i have read Chomsky so get down off your high horse. What I'd saying is, acknowledge what you're faced with and work within that for now - manipulate the media to your own ends.

09:22 / 18.06.01

quote:Originally posted by reidcourchie:

Explain to me then why the Toxic Texan would want to put a missle defence system in this day and age?

Fear and ignorance. Regretable, though not the same as corruption and greed.

Regrettable Juvenilia

09:22 / 18.06.01

COME ON THEN WHO WANTS A FUCKING RUCK???

...

Whew. Don't know about you but I needed to get that off my chest.

I dunno. Those naughty protestors. Throwing bricks. That's bad. That's violent. Nuclear fucking missiles on the other hand, they're just fiiiine.

Or, to put it another way: now they've started shooting us, and here we are at the %cutting edge of disobedience% saying yes sir, no sir, violent protest is wrong sir, we're good citizens, please put your missile bases on our doorstep...

Whoops, sorry, mustn't fall into that pesky 'us/them' dichotomy. Dao Jones will be along in a minute to pat me on the head and help me with my 'soul'.

"But yeah, um, those protestors - sorry, 'rioters' - they're stoopid cos (unlike me) they don't have a coherent political agenda. At least, that's what The Guardian says. I think violence is bad and war is wong and people should be nice to one another. Of course there are poor people in Africa but it can't be that nice Tony Blair's fault."

Good old Tony. He says he won't let a "travelling anarchist circus" come to Britain. He's smoking a lot of crack these days.

Sorry, I'm just ranting emotively now. I'll shut up, with one last final 'for FUCK'S sake'!

[ 18-06-2001: Message edited by: Zenith ]

Page: (1)2 3 4