Police Clash At G-8

[Crusader]

Source: CBC

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...ence050706.html

 

Banging drums, blowing whistles and shouting, thousands of demonstrators are marching toward a faceoff with hundreds of police near the site of G-8 Summit in Scotland.

 

Police on Wednesday reversed an earlier decision and decided to allow the protest march through the village of Auchterarder, which is about 4 kilometres from the Gleneagles golf resort, the site of the summit.

 

Authorities said the march could go ahead after holding talks with its organizer, G8 Alternatives.

 

Demonstrators and organizers were outraged when police cancelled the march, calling it a "serious indictment of British democracy."

 

Speaking to thousands of demonstrators, march organizer Keir McKechnie said they had a right to protest.

 

"We will give them a clear message that we want every troop out of Iraq, we want serious action on climate change, we want all the debt dropped for Africa ... we want reparations for the rape of Africa over the last 200 years," said McKechnie.

 

Shopkeepers in the village of 4,000 have boarded up their windows in anticipation of the expected 5,000 marchers.

 

Small groups of activists are gathered at the main road into the Gleneagles resort, which is ringed by a heavy police presence.

 

Earlier in the day, about 100 black-clad activists made the 20-kilometre trek from a campsite used as a headquarters by anti-globalization demonstrators to the resort area.

 

Police said the group smashed car windows and attacked police with stones, sending at least eight officers to hospital. Authorities have warned they'll have zero tolerance for violence and shut down the main highway from the Scottish capital Edinburgh to Gleneagles.

 

In the nearby community of Bannockburn, demonstrators threw rocks at police vehicles and attacked a Burger King restaurant, smashing its windows.

 

In the capital, singer, activist and Live8 organizer Bob Geldof is calling for people to march on Wednesday to pressure the leaders.

 

There's also a concert planned for later in the day called Edinburgh 50,000: The Final Push. The number is a reference to the number of people that will die today from poverty.

 

Geldof has distanced his "Make Poverty History" campaign from the violent activity of the protesters near the summit site, saying they just came to make trouble.

 

Oh, anarchists.

[supercanuk]

lol part of me wants to say "right on" because i am most definatly in total support of the protestors, but part of me can't condone the violence. Quite the paradox we have on our hands here, when its state sanctioned violence ( police brutality, wars, etc) its justifiable, however we do not condone violence of the common citizen in his rage of dissent. I really would have to ( if i had to choose) sit on the side of the dissenter, so i guess, right on with the throwing of rocks? ;)

[TheKwas]

Fucking Black Blocs have to learn the difference between counter-policing and just being assholes.

[juanpe]

police always acts in the same way when there are protectors against power (G-8) and unjustice... what a pity...

[Rebabaluba]

I think that the Police can tone it down a bit. But their job is to stop people from getting by them and they can't say "oh please be nice and go away", so they baton them! And none of you know the type of wacko's there are out there, so its better to be safe than sorry.

[Sparq]

When you're up against more than ten times your number in a potentially violent mob, it's not smart or safe to do things the gentle way. Protestors typically get off much more lightly than they would if they did the same things in a small group. The whole 'riot police are always oppressing me' thing just doesn't make sense. They have a job to do.

[TheKwas]

When you're up against more than ten times your number in a potentially violent mob, it's not smart or safe to do things the gentle way. Protestors typically get off much more lightly than they would if they did the same things in a small group. The whole 'riot police are always oppressing me' thing just doesn't make sense. They have a job to do.

Yet, protesting is a right. I think rights trump jobs.

[Sparq]

But violent protests are not a right. The police are there to ensure those exercising their rights don't cross that line, as at least a small portion of them almost invariably do. I'm not saying it doesn't work both ways, or that the riot cops are never out of line. I'm saying they aren't all the sadistic stormtroopers bent on inflicting pain everyone seems to think they are

[TheKwas]

Often when marches or protests get violent is when the police try to control the protest in the first place. I can't really speak on this one too much because the arcitle hardly provides details, but I know the G8 meeting in Montreal turned violent when the police wouldn't even let the protesters come close to the fence (thus restricting the protesters movement on public property).

 

If I was a protester, I wouldn't let any police obstruct my right to protest in any way. He's got a job, I've got a right.

[ecnarf]

If I was a protester, I wouldn't let any police obstruct my right to protest in any way. He's got a gun, I've got a right.

Edited to more accurately reflect reality. Don't mean to insult you, but such altruism regarding the right to protest world leaders will end up in a trip to the hospital and/or jail.

 

P.S. the G-8 summit was in Quebec, not Montreal.

[Sparq]

That's the thing. Perhaps it only gets violent because the police are there. But if they're not, perhaps it gets violent anyway, and the protestors kill people attending the G8 summit. History has shown that humans in large mobs tend to be less than benevolent.

 

An unfortunate neccessity as far as I'm concerned. There is no perfect solution to this issue.

Edited July 11, 2005 by Sparq

[supercanuk]

lol and in so comes the black blocs ;) hehe you all know what i mean.. well i hope..

EDIT: oh god, fine Black Blocs

Edited July 11, 2005 by supercanuk

[Doc]

It's amazing to me that there are always some protests, seemingly the large ones, that get out of hand very quickly, yet others seem to remain relatively peaceful. I don't recall a whole lot of violence in March 2003 when 15 million people in numerous countries protested the US' right to wage war pre-emptively.

 

In a large group, there will always be 'troublemakers.' Anarchists are the typical kind, if you had to lump them all in one group, but never underestimate mob mentality. And never underestimate the police's use of force in controlling a large group. When you're dealing with numbers of that size, you can't afford to be picky.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm a pacifist, I don't believe in the use of force or violence at all, but unfortunately, my views aren't shared by the majority of people. Including my parents, it would seem.

 

D

[supercanuk]

It's amazing to me that there are always some protests, seemingly the large ones, that get out of hand very quickly, yet others seem to remain relatively peaceful. I don't recall a whole lot of violence in March 2003 when 15 million people in numerous countries protested the US' right to wage war pre-emptively.

 

In a large group, there will always be 'troublemakers.' Anarchists are the typical kind, if you had to lump them all in one group, but never underestimate mob mentality. And never underestimate the police's use of force in controlling a large group. When you're dealing with numbers of that size, you can't afford to be picky.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm a pacifist, I don't believe in the use of force or violence at all, but unfortunately, my views aren't shared by the majority of people. Including my parents, it would seem.

 

D

Sometimes i think that violence, strategically, needs to be done. We can protest till we're blue in the face, prime example March 2003 15 million people protested and the U.S. is still in Iraq. When the state holds all the cards, it is sometimes up to the people to do violent actions to acheive certain means. Prime example is the American revolution, in the states, these people are looked as hero's instead of traitors, so whats really the difference? They won. If they had lost they would have all been hanged and there endtrails brought through the streets. But since they won, they were looked as heros and did " what the had to" so to speak, to acheive their means.

[TheKwas]

That's the thing. Perhaps it only gets violent because the police are there. But if they're not, perhaps it gets violent anyway, and the protestors kill people attending the G8 summit. History has shown that humans in large mobs tend to be less than benevolent.

 

An unfortunate neccessity as far as I'm concerned. There is no perfect solution to this issue.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be there. I'm saying they should be there as POLICE, and not as defenders of the state. They should be observing the protest, not being the counterweight to the protest.

 

lol and in so comes the black blocs wink.gif hehe you all know what i mean.. well i hope..

EDIT: oh god, fine Black Blocs

 

I like black blocs when they actually do their job(counter-policing, pushing protests to the next level if needed).

 

When the state holds all the cards, it is sometimes up to the people to do violent actions to acheive certain means. Prime example is the American revolution, in the states, these people are looked as hero's instead of traitors, so whats really the difference?

 

It doesn't even need to be a full-blown revolution, sometimes just merely pushing a protest further and not allowing 100 police deny 100,000 people their right to protest. To send the message to the state that they are a serious threat that shouldn't and CAN'T be ignored and pushed to the side.

 

If I was a protester, I wouldn't let any police obstruct my right to protest in any way. He's got a gun, I've got a right.

 

Meh, He's got a gun, I've got numbers.

[Sparq]

I'm not saying they shouldn't be there. I'm saying they should be there as POLICE, and not as defenders of the state.

Edited July 12, 2005 by Sparq

[TheKwas]

I'm not saying they shouldn't be there. I'm saying they should be there as POLICE, and not as defenders of the state.  They should be observing the protest, not being the counterweight to the protest.

 

No argument there...except that the inherent (and perhaps well deserved) distrust of riot control officers by protestors will make them a target of some degree of hostility no matter how they go about their duties.

 

True.

 

The guns, batons, grenade launchers, gas, pepper spray, armor, and shields are, of course, all force multipliers. There may be strength in numbers, but that isn't the same as invincibility. It'd have to be a determined crowd indeed to keep moving forward after a few of the people up front get shot.

 

That's exactly what the Black Blocs are doing. It's their "job" (for lack of a better word) to take the intial shots and to confront the police when needed and push the protest further, despite police intervention. They are tring to tap into the potential the protest has in it's numbers and basicly, provide a counter-balance to the advantage the police have. The police arrest people, the Black Bloc un-arrests people. The police set up barricades to block the protest, the Black blocs break down barricades to make way for the protest.

[supercanuk]

That's exactly what the Black Blocs are doing. It's their "job" (for lack of a better word) to take the intial shots and to confront the police when needed and push the protest further, despite police intervention. They are tring to tap into the potential the protest has in it's numbers and basicly, provide a counter-balance to the advantage the police have. The police arrest people, the Black Bloc un-arrests people. The police set up barricades to block the protest, the Black blocs break down barricades to make way for the protest.

Simply put, thank you. I didnt want to have to explain that.

[calm2chaos]

lol part of me wants to say "right on" because i am most definatly in total support of the protestors, but part of me can't condone the violence. Quite the paradox we have on our hands here, when its state sanctioned violence ( police brutality, wars, etc) its justifiable, however we do not condone violence of the common citizen in his rage of dissent. I really would have to ( if i had to choose) sit on the side of the dissenter, so i guess, right on with the throwing of rocks? ;)

Woohoo.. Nothing like proteting by threatening lives and destroying property. Thats the way to get your message across. I have no doubt after getting hit in the head or your car overturned and burned you have tons of sympathy for the protesters...LOL

[supercanuk]

lol part of me wants to say "right on" because i am most definatly in total support of the protestors, but part of me can't condone the violence. Quite the paradox we have on our hands here, when its state sanctioned violence ( police brutality, wars, etc) its justifiable, however we do not condone violence of the common citizen in his rage of dissent. I really would have to ( if i had to choose) sit on the side of the dissenter, so i guess, right on with the throwing of rocks?  ;)

Woohoo.. Nothing like proteting by threatening lives and destroying property. Thats the way to get your message across. I have no doubt after getting hit in the head or your car overturned and burned you have tons of sympathy for the protesters...LOL

wow your a real ignorant person eh? go enjoy your blissful inability to see what the hell is going on in the world around you.

[calm2chaos]

lol part of me wants to say "right on" because i am most definatly in total support of the protestors, but part of me can't condone the violence. Quite the paradox we have on our hands here, when its state sanctioned violence ( police brutality, wars, etc) its justifiable, however we do not condone violence of the common citizen in his rage of dissent. I really would have to ( if i had to choose) sit on the side of the dissenter, so i guess, right on with the throwing of rocks?

Edited July 15, 2005 by calm2chaos

[supercanuk]

lol part of me wants to say "right on" because i am most definatly in total support of the protestors, but part of me can't condone the violence. Quite the paradox we have on our hands here, when its state sanctioned violence ( police brutality, wars, etc) its justifiable, however we do not condone violence of the common citizen in his rage of dissent. I really would have to ( if i had to choose) sit on the side of the dissenter, so i guess, right on with the throwing of rocks?  ;)

Woohoo.. Nothing like proteting by threatening lives and destroying property. Thats the way to get your message across. I have no doubt after getting hit in the head or your car overturned and burned you have tons of sympathy for the protesters...LOL

wow your a real ignorant person eh? go enjoy your blissful inability to see what the hell is going on in the world around you.

And you keep living in a world were people respect your message or even listen to it if your going to break the law and destroy property. I have no problems with people protesting, it's there right an it is needed in some situations. But you lose your message in your actions when you do things such as that. And if you can't see that then you would be the ignorant one

Okay for starters who said I have commited these actions. I said i would sit on the side of the protestor for throwing rocks, in terms of an argument, not that i commit these actions myself. I was trying to say that in terms of the greater evils, the state commits many more evils then any protestor. BUt once again my "message" or w/e the hell it is, has been fallen on deaf ears. I'll say it once more, look at what our governments are doing that is extreamly emoral. Not to say that there is one "good" state, in fact organized government is a little rediculous when one looks at the illegit authority we give the state to do actions in our names. However this is deviating from the point, how can we justify state actions that are horrific, and not justify the actions of protestors who are expressing rage and anger over what is going on by destroying some personal property. I am not saying that i want people rioting in the streets, I am saying that we can't look down on protestors when the state is doing worse.

[TheKwas]

Not to mention, the whole point of causing destruction is to get across a point. Mainly that you can't simply ignore the protesters and push them to the side, they mean buisness. It's a cry for attention.

[supercanuk]

Not to mention, the whole point of causing destruction is to get across a point. Mainly that you can't simply ignore the protesters and push them to the side, they mean buisness. It's a cry for attention.

Exactly, aptly put.

[calm2chaos]

Not to mention, the whole point of causing destruction is to get across a point. Mainly that you can't simply ignore the protesters and push them to the side, they mean buisness. It's a cry for attention.

But the simple fact is as soon as you destroy something I stop listening. If it's something of mine i'm going to stomp a 3 foot mudhole in your ass. As soon as people stop listening to you your message is useless. And thats what happens when you break the law or destroy shit. Your actions become the story and not your cause.