[J m HofMarN]

Civilian- I think I already pointed out that I was using that term in context with the groups that coined it and to the cops mentioned in my history I think it's perfectly applicable and hey its not just for cops anymore- Ariel Sharon, George Bush, Richard Nixon, the national guard at Kent State, Ronald Reagan, J Edgar Hoover-- All pigs by the definition of the BPP. And as a veteran protester I can definately disagree with you. My organization has always been friendly to the police as long as they don't provoke us. There's a certain amount of posturing involved.

The Black Bloc, who I have marched with a few times, are kind of like the anti-police. I've seen a protest without a black bloc present and well let me tell you it was sad. The cops hastled us at every turn cuz there was noone there to put the fear of god in them. In marches with a contingent of BB members present the cops are a lot more respectful and I find that there's less harassment because they know we'll riot at the drop of a hat.

However thats not to say I'm against police. I've marched with some of them who supported our causes and I've never been disrespectful to them without just cause. I've never participated in a full riot but when the cops push us we pushed back and I really don't see how civil disobedience amounts to disrespect for cops as people. I can understand they need to do their jobs and we need to do ours and as long as noone goes too far we've always been cool.

Oh, and Jordan, your mom's pretty odd if she was telling you to get married when before you could talk. What is it, an arranged marriage with the princess of a neighboring kingdom?



Anyhow we kind of got off topic. What I wanted to do with this thread was voice support for some of the groups I like and also point out that not all "Terrorists" are Muslims and thus that racial profiling dosn't work. I think very much the same thoughts as some middle eastern radicals, and so do many militant anarchists and communists. So racial profiling dosnt work at all because the color of someone's skin cannot tell you if they're a terrorist or not.

[Jordan]

According to my friend, the vast majority of protests that end in violence are usually caused by a handful of unscrupulous assholes. He's rarely seen cops start beating down people at marches for no reason.

You have your respectful protestors and then you have your violent ones. The violent people ruin it for everybody, because once you stirr the cops, they begin to crack down on the masses, not just the guilty.

I saw some footage at the socialist convention (the same one I mentioned earlier) that showed a single cop in riot gear (no face mask or helmet) freaking out as people surrounded him shouting. This poor guy had a red face, was totally overwhelmed and literally snapped. He started hitting people with his batton and telling them to back off.

I'm not sure what happened. But here is my guess. The officer was trying to detain a shit disturber. He probably hit him a few times and tossed him to the ground. Other people saw this and thought it was a random beating. They then enclosed him and started shouting. The cop reacted accordingly and snapped.

Now, it's not the cops fault, it's not the protestors (they probably were confused) it was the jerk(s) who pissed off the cop who then confused the crowd.

It doesn't take many people to ruin those events. Just a hand full. It's the beatings and violence that make front page. Even if the majority of the protestors were civil.

[J m HofMarN]

Jordan- You're just making assumptions. The tactic you witnessed is called un-arresting and I've seen it done plenty of times. In one protest the BB surrounded a paddy wagon and liberated the prisoners within. Personally I love that tactic. It's amazing to see how people's authoritarianism crumbles once they realize they don't hold the power any longer.

And I'm still waiting for your statement on the actual subject of this debate. If you don't have anything intelligent to say I don't mind.

[not this crude matter]

Im not saying racial profiling works every time. Im just saying its a good tool to use and its also common sense. If I see 5 middle eastern men looking suspicous in an airport I would hope the security guards would pay more attention and watch them more closely than they would a 50 year old woman.

Also, if I may ask what is the BPP's definition of pig? I must be a compliment if Ronald Reagan is on the list.


Jm hofmarn- you mentioned in one protest you surrounded a paddy wagon and liberated the criminals. That is against the law isn't it? And you guys wonder why the cops have to resort to vioilence when you do shit like that.

This post has been edited by not this crude matter: 06 January 2005 - 10:18 PM

[Jordan]

What debate?

How could you stop police? Who are the Black Bloc?

[Slade]

NTCM - You're too stereotypical to even bother answering. Like you're a parody of what you believe in or something. Please go trolling on someone elses forums.

Also, violence clearly solves everything.

Edit: Post-post info:

He prolly means the "Is racial profiling OK?" debate.

This post has been edited by Slade: 07 January 2005 - 01:14 AM

[J m HofMarN]

Im not saying racial profiling works every time. Im just saying its a good tool to use and its also common sense.

I cant imagine why you'd still be claiming this after statistical proof that most terrorism in this country is purpetrated by WHITE PEOPLE and NOT Muslims!!! Considering that that puts the shoe on the other foot would you (assuming you're of a caucasian background) really feel peachy keen if you were at an airport and you heard a cop say "Keep an eye on that white guy, you know they're all terrorists. Maybe we better detain him"

If you would feel uncomfortable hearing that then how do you think a middle eastern fellow would feel?

Jm hofmarn- you mentioned in one protest you surrounded a paddy wagon and liberated the criminals. That is against the law isn't it? And you guys wonder why the cops have to resort to vioilence when you do shit like that.

Yes, yes it is illegal. But lets pretend for a moment that the very very nice cops had accidentally arrested a very, very good person. Let's pretend that President Bush had been arrested while he was taking a walk and picking flowers. Now, theoretically, even though it would be against the law to free him, don't you think it would be *right* to free him? (note, in no way do I believe Bush SHOULDNT be rotting in prison for the rest of his natural life, but I'm just using an example that ntcm can relate to)

What debate? How could you stop police? Who are the Black Bloc?

What day is it? Where's my medication? Is it time time to play bingo again?

Seriously though, the debate I'm refering to is indeed the debate about racial profiling and I'm sure we all see how this pertains to it. We stop the police by matching whatever they do. If they shoot tear gas at us we throw it back, if they use violence we get violent back at them. A cop is a lot braver when there is no chance of repercussions. The Black Bloc is a loose group of militant anarchists who wear black clothes and masks to prevent identification. They're not a formal organization so much as they're just a meeting of like-minded people who come together with a single goal.

[Jordan]

I guess Cops can't really kill protestors, so the black bloc is not in any serious danger. The worst I've heard happen in a N.American Protest was a man dying accidentally from mase and another time with a rubber bullet.

[civilian_number_two]

In an ordered society, a protester arrested while NOT committing any criminal act will be detained and then released. The cops in North America more or less round up instigators, guys who piss them off, and assholes who throw rocks. This is at protests, JM, and yes, I know there have been exceptions.

"Freeing" said non-felons can't really be considered the point of the protest. Most of the time these protests are organized to make some sort of political point, although I acknowledge that once in a while they are staged to commemorate a hockey game. So when the protestors give up on the actual political cause and start batting with the police, all they can possibly be encouraging is the exact OPPOSITE of what they probably wanted, ie a freer society, more right to peaceful protest, a voice in public debate. Instead, the next time these protestors are recognized by the police, the escalation will start earlier, or the baricades will be established at such a ridiculous distance that armed confrontation with the police becomes a necessity in order to see that the protest will be noticed by the target.

The tertiary side effect in more draconian societies (like my home town of Vancouver) is that these clashes are so commonplace that any public gathering is suspect, and massive police involvement colours even music festivals and fireworks displays.

Left to their own devices, the police - sorry, the pigs - would just let the captured non-felon out with no charges laid. In the case where they plan to lay charges, usually the character was throwing rocks at cops or breaking a window. In which case, of course, you are freeing a felon, and one who had been committing a crime you'd probably not defend had it occurred at another time (say you were walking down the street and you saw the police arresting a guy for just breaking windows, for instance).

---------------

I for one, and I am 100% serious, think that genuine resistance to the known order can only occur in two ways: moving in and having a stake in the system; or random, violent, devil-may-care mayhem. If a protestor is willing to kill random people and he doesn't care who he hurts, then the movement will achieve momentum. All of the change that wasn't going to happen anyway has happened in one of these two ways: politicians and lawyers working on the system from within; and terrorists or the army of another country softening a nation's resolve with violence. And frankly I think outside of open war the former is the more successful. So I guess I say student protest movements are a nice way to make friends and talk about politics, but let's be honest with ourselves when we talk about what they might have achieved.

---------------

Yes racial profiling is bad. I was a white guy in University in the early 90s, so I know what it's like to be blamed for everything. During the early 90s, every single thing wrong with western society was constantly blamed on white guys. It was pretty fucking annoying. For the record, I never enslaved anyone, i never denied anyone the vote, and all the other dumb shit guys always resorted to saying during that awful reign of terror.

On the other side of that, of course, if a bomb goes off in an airport, and everyone goes running, and the cops detain the Arab guy with the backpack, I'm only going to raise an eyebrow if they detain him indefinitely without trial or counsel. And yes, Jordan, this happens, so bad, bad bad, US.

And Jordan: no hard feelings man. Am I still on top for Asteroids?

[civilian_number_two]

PS: JM, I don't care how you're using the term "pig." It was used to represent all rich people, "the other side," in the Beatles song that popularized it, and by the Manson family.

I could use "niggers," or "bitches," and have handy contexts for them, but that's still a pejoratively charged set of words, unless you happen to be hanging out exclusively among wannabe hippies who know exactly what you're taliking about. You want to avoid offending people, then you should avoid using offensive words.


By the way, "paddy wagon" is a pejorative term as well, designed to create the idea that all prisoners thrown into mobile drunk tanks are Irish, and naturally as an Irishman I should call you on that.

[J m HofMarN]

Jordan- Haymarket, Fred Hampton, Mumia Abu Jamal, Kent State, Berkely, etc etc.

Civilian:

In an ordered society, a protester arrested while NOT committing any criminal act will be detained and then released.

It is our civic duty to free our brothers and sisters who are imprisoned while fighting the power or excersising their rights. If I had my way today every imprisoned BPP and Weather underground member would be walking the streets freely today.

"Freeing" said non-felons can't really be considered the point of the protest.

Sure it can! "Our civil rights are under attack! What do we do? Stand up, fight back!" That's a protest chant I know quite well. The message that arresting protesters sends, and the message that is sent by the people we have to beg for permits, and the message that is sent by the powers that be who ignore us, they all basically want us to keep quiet. And so we don't. And so they arrest some of us. So we free those they arrest. Now if that isn't an act of protest I don't know what is.

In which case, of course, you are freeing a felon, and one who had been committing a crime you'd probably not defend had it occurred at another time (say you were walking down the street and you saw the police arresting a guy for just breaking windows, for instance).

This is a very good point. However I think doing it for politcal reasons is a great deal different from simply doing it for the hell of it. Property destruction is an outcropping of primal rage against the system and its structures. It's a misplaced anger yes but it's only a symptom of repression. Where are these people supposed to voice this? Protests are ignored. Third parties are ignored. Any dangerous movements are destroyed. It is the fault of the system that riots occur as we've seen time and again. Blaming the Black Bloc for violence at protests is like blaming the French peasants for the revolution.

I say student protest movements are a nice way to make friends and talk about politics, but let's be honest with ourselves when we talk about what they might have achieved.

It's something, for god's sake it's something! Can we sit idle? Can we do nothing? At least the protest movements provide a way for radicals to meet and organize. From the student protest movements of the 60s came the Weathermen who later declared war on the US regime. It's about making alliances and showing solidarity and keeping up the fight in whatever form it takes. No revolution that has been successful has started out violent. You try to change the system peacefully, democratically, and then when they stop you you go a step further and push back and eventually one fine day you change everything. That is the goal of the revolution. And every stone thrown, every fist raised, every slogan painted, every cop car overturned. It's just one more drop and one less second until that day comes when the powerful can no longer hold back the tide and chain the will of the people!

And I wasnt aware about paddy wagon and will surely stop using that one, but I think that pigs- "the racist rich rulers of Amerika" as Cleaver defined it, is a fine term but for the moment I'll save it for the communist party meetings. Very good points though.

[not this crude matter]

JM- what were your frineds charged for that you were freeing?

[civilian_number_two]

This is a very good point. However I think doing it for politcal reasons is a great deal different from simply doing it for the hell of it. Property destruction is an outcropping of primal rage against the system and its structures. It's a misplaced anger yes but it's only a symptom of repression. Where are these people supposed to voice this? Protests are ignored. Third parties are ignored. Any dangerous movements are destroyed. It is the fault of the system that riots occur as we've seen time and again. Blaming the Black Bloc for violence at protests is like blaming the French peasants for the revolution.

------------------------

Hypothetical, and I'm not saying this ever happened: Let's say a group of kids went out protesting the war in Iraq, and a few girls in a t-shirt shop yelled out the window somehting like "why don't you go home?" and the kids ran into the store and beat the fuck out of these girls? Lets' say one of them was pretty cute, so while two of the kids were trashing the store, a few of the others starting raping the cute one?

Then let's say some pigs came in and started violating the civil rights of the protesters by beating them silly with nightsticks and throwing them in the van. So along come some comrades, who recognize one of the freedom fighters from an earlier protest, where they were all gleefully pepper sparayed while they pointed replica pistols at cops and taunted them to shoot. These protestors then surround the van and engage in a street brawl with the arresting officers, win, and ultimately free their fellow activists.

What comment can be made in this outlandish hypothetical about wars and innocent bystanders?

-----------------

Now consider the more mundane and terribly common example where the protestors aren't raping anyone but instead they're smashing the windows of a Starbucks and flipping over citizens' cars.

Like I said, the non-felons will be released without charges. Police have allowed some protests to go on too long in the past, and these things have ended badly. Sometimes they can't tell. A peaceful sit-in can turn into a riot without any warning. The danger for the protestor is to go in with the assumption that all cops are goons who want to beat up college kids. Chances are they had a reason to arrest a particular guy, chances are they didn't. In America, for white people, it's pretty safe to get arrested during a protest, since you probably didn't break any laws, or minor ones at best. You're not going to get a record, and the cops are probably closing the protest down, not right away, but after they let it runa few hours and it was time to send people home (and they wouldn't go).

And yes - it is constitutional to break up crowds. To do it ALL THE TIME, and never to allow any public gathering, would be tyrrany. But enough is enough. "Freedom of assembly" wasn't drafted so armies of thugs could sit wherever they wanted for as long as they wanted, and more than the "right to bear arms" means that everyone should own an assault rifle. Somewhere in between both those extremes is where we actually wnat to live. I say breaking up a protests after it gets ugly or after a few hours is fair enough (I'd never want to stay more than a few hours anyway).

Back to the point I was trying to make, anyone wanting to attack cops to make a point has to realize that the point they are making will never be interpreted as "we have been protesting this or that;" the point will be "we like to attack cops." That's all anyone will ever remember. The protest is no longer about war, or famine, or about the Canucks losing game seven, it's about fighting cops.

Curiously, in later years, the FBI has been accused of infiltrating peace movements and turning them to violence to undermine their credibility. the credibility of those movements was successfully undermined, and the result has been that even peaceful people by and large are wary of mobs. And with an ironic good reason: a lot of the kids today who wish they'd been a live in the sixties look back at those protests and think the violence they enacted was COOL. Never the causes, but how the little guy took to the streets and challenged the pigs. The FBI has a lot less work to do ....



In answer to your question: what are you supposed to do if you want change? Either start actually killing important people and their children, or destoying buildings and artifacts of great value in conspicuous public displays, or get your degree and sign up. Street level protest only raises the awareness level of the street-level protestor. Everyone else pays attention to violence and politics. Either get violent or get elected.

Edit: added pirate.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 07 January 2005 - 11:41 PM

[J m HofMarN]

not this crude matter- I'm not saying I did any of this, considering the existence of COINTEPLRO and ECHELON etc. I'm not saying I necessarily condone it either. I'm a good American and I love our glorious leader. However in this theoretical situation you speak of my friends weren;t charged with anything they'd simply been arrested.

Hypothetical, and I'm not saying this ever happened: Let's say a group of kids went out protesting the war in Iraq, and a few girls in a t-shirt shop yelled out the window somehting like "why don't you go home?" and the kids ran into the store and beat the fuck out of these girls? Lets' say one of them was pretty cute, so while two of the kids were trashing the store, a few of the others starting raping the cute one?

Hypothetically, let's say you shot me in the face and I came back as an undead monstrosity bent on revenge...

Ok now that we're back in the realm of reason not only would this never happen but if any of the black bloc saw it, or all but the most fervent pacifist protesters in general, those people would not only get arrested, but they'd get a bloody good ass kicking first.

"The danger for the protestor is to go in with the assumption that all cops are goons who want to beat up college kids."

Have you ever actually BEEN to a protest? Thats the exact opposite of the right message. When you go to a protest you hope for the best, yeah, but you know you're likely facing authoritarian violent aggressive people and you prepare.

Water to flush out the eyes
a mask to protect from tear gas and hide your identity
wallet left at home to prevent a positive ID if captured
a strong board to attach your placard to that can be used as a weapon
no necklaces or other things cops can grab on to
no drugs or weapons (the board dosnt count)
no phone numbers of other movement members

You go prepared and you'll come out ok. You go in the mindset that you're going to face repression from the cops and you'll be able to deal with them.

"the cops are probably closing the protest down, not right away, but after they let it runa few hours"

I've been to protests like this that were broken up by the cops. It is DEPRESSING. We had to unchain ourselves from a lamp pole, got threatened with a list of charges including conspiracy, obstruction of justice, vagrancy, delinquency, corruption of a minor, etc etc. They did it because they knew that we likely wouldnt be able to put up a decent fight against them (indeed we didnt have any weapons at all and we were outnumbered so fighting wasn't a possibility)

But if we had had decent numbers they never would have pulled that crap. Cops don't deserve to tell me and my friends when we can and can't peacefully protest and if they try we deserve to fight back. And if they turn it into a physical fight it's well within our rights to fight back with violence. It may not say it in the constitution, but thats how I see things.

The protest is no longer about war, or famine, or about the Canucks losing game seven, it's about fighting cops.

The entity in power is the group that supports the war. Not supporting the war is defying them. The cops are a symbol of that entity's power so fighting the cops does send a message. I only consider this justified if the cops provoke it though.

Either get violent or get elected.

Thats a rather pessimistic viewpoint. What about Ghandi and Martin Luther King and the Vietnam anti war movement?

[SimeSublime]

I've always thought protests were rather weak. You come across as a bunch of whinging hippies or a group of violent thugs. Either way, the image is rarely positive.