This is taken from the wall of the event "March to Demand Justice! Denounce the G20 Crisis and Save our Rights!"
The argument: "The Black Bloc tactics turn Young Street into a war zone. The crowd of 'protesters' defend and hide the anarchists and vandals; complicit in their conduct. This video proves that the protest went too far ( http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/g20-aftermath/#clip318869 ). For the protection of civil order and inalienable rights of Canadian citizens to their safety and property, an overzealous police force would honestly be my preference. I have no sympathy for the detainees - if you lay down with dogs, you will get fleas. If you surround yourself with violent actors, be prepared to get hit. I don't step into a boxing ring and then cry foul when someone punches me in the face" - Darcy Dupas
Responses:
"Like almost all of the other comments supporting police actions, this post contains two basic arguments: (1) 'violent' protest is always wrong and protesters who willingly participate in vandalism deserve whatever treatment they receive from the police, even if that police treatment is a gross violation of basic international human rights; and (2) peaceful protesters, bystanders, and witnesses to the protests and police responses are guilty of 'violence' by association.
The first argument is troubling enough in that it conflates vandalism (Black Bloc protesters smashing windows) with violence against other people (police tasering a non-violent witness who has a pacemaker while he screams out that he has a pacemaker). (For the latter, read the Toronto Star article on Adam MacIsaac.) Smashing a window may be childish and ineffectual, sure, but electric torture of a non-vandalising, non-threatening, non-protesting citizen--one you are sworn to serve and protect--is a conscious adoption of terrorising tactics. The conduct of individual police officers cannot be excused under the aegis of performing duties. (Comparisons to Nazism are legitimate in this respect.)
What's even more disturbing is the combination of the two arguments I outlined above. When you put them together, they imply that it is fundamentally 'wrong' (or at least deserving of punishment) to witness challenges to the state and to hold the state accountable for responding to those challenges. It’s not up to the state to determine what forms (violent or non-violent; filled out in triplicate or shouted by a crowd) constitutes a legitimate challenge. If it were, the state could simply plug its ears whenever it didn’t want to deal with criticism: a state that can choose whether or not to listen to its peoples--and whether or not its own peoples are permitted to hear each other and themselves.
Furthermore, the two core arguments imply that it is fundamentally ‘wrong’ (or at least deserving of punishment) to witness the behaviour of the police and to hold them accountable for that behaviour. That is not only our right but our duty as citizens: police and juridical systems are in place not to protect the state from the people but to protect the people from the overreaches of the state. But we can see the growing alienation between people and police and the growing militarisation of the police in some of the language used this weekend: police spokespeople referred to non-police as ‘civilians.’ The police are civilians too! They are accountable to us! Where is their sudden impunity coming from? And why are some of us okay with it simply because we haven’t yet felt their boot heels on our throats?
If you really believe both of the above arguments supporting police actions this past weekend, you may want to move to a country that isn’t a democracy. Or you could just wait around Canada and keep nodding in bitter and frightened approval when the government and police overstep their bounds. Your complicity will soon ensure that you no longer have to suffer the inconveniences of democracy." - Andy Verboom
Response 2:
"So Darcy, once you begin to protest you forfeit your "inalienable" rights? I thought they were inalienable? And what about the journalists who were included in the collective punishment and were beaten and had their equipment destroyed? Also Darcy, you might want to keep a copy of the Canadian constitution including the Bill of Rights next to your toilet so you can wipe your ass with it, because from what you write it seems like that is the value you place upon our civil rights. When the police violate the constitution, they are violating the strict conditions under which we have given them their authority. When they do that, they nullify their own authority and become criminals themselves. You had better think long and hard about what it means for people to have rights and what it means when an officer violates those rights. They are breaking the most fundamental social contract, they are nullifying their lawful authority and they are spitting in the faces of all the veterans who fought and died so that we could have the right to protest. Those anarchists are simply put, useful idiots, and there needs to be a full scale investigation to determine which of the anarchists were police provocateurs placed there to incite violence, as the Quebec Police admitted to using such tactics against peaceful protesters during the Security Prosperity Partnership Summit in Montabello Quebec. During that peaceful protest there were masked men with rocks who were hired by the police to incite violence so they could have an excuse to crack down and bust heads. Now it has gotten worse, as there was no punishment or investigation, and what we saw at the G20 last weekend is PURE FASCISM. Therefore, you had better wake up to these dire times we find ourselves in." - Aaron Skables
The argument: "The Black Bloc tactics turn Young Street into a war zone. The crowd of 'protesters' defend and hide the anarchists and vandals; complicit in their conduct. This video proves that the protest went too far ( http://watch.ctv.ca/news/l
Responses:
"Like almost all of the other comments supporting police actions, this post contains two basic arguments: (1) 'violent' protest is always wrong and protesters who willingly participate in vandalism deserve whatever treatment they receive from the police, even if that police treatment is a gross violation of basic international human rights; and (2) peaceful protesters, bystanders, and witnesses to the protests and police responses are guilty of 'violence' by association.
The first argument is troubling enough in that it conflates vandalism (Black Bloc protesters smashing windows) with violence against other people (police tasering a non-violent witness who has a pacemaker while he screams out that he has a pacemaker). (For the latter, read the Toronto Star article on Adam MacIsaac.) Smashing a window may be childish and ineffectual, sure, but electric torture of a non-vandalising, non-threatening, non-protesting citizen--one you are sworn to serve and protect--is a conscious adoption of terrorising tactics. The conduct of individual police officers cannot be excused under the aegis of performing duties. (Comparisons to Nazism are legitimate in this respect.)
What's even more disturbing is the combination of the two arguments I outlined above. When you put them together, they imply that it is fundamentally 'wrong' (or at least deserving of punishment) to witness challenges to the state and to hold the state accountable for responding to those challenges. It’s not up to the state to determine what forms (violent or non-violent; filled out in triplicate or shouted by a crowd) constitutes a legitimate challenge. If it were, the state could simply plug its ears whenever it didn’t want to deal with criticism: a state that can choose whether or not to listen to its peoples--and whether or not its own peoples are permitted to hear each other and themselves.
Furthermore, the two core arguments imply that it is fundamentally ‘wrong’ (or at least deserving of punishment) to witness the behaviour of the police and to hold them accountable for that behaviour. That is not only our right but our duty as citizens: police and juridical systems are in place not to protect the state from the people but to protect the people from the overreaches of the state. But we can see the growing alienation between people and police and the growing militarisation of the police in some of the language used this weekend: police spokespeople referred to non-police as ‘civilians.’ The police are civilians too! They are accountable to us! Where is their sudden impunity coming from? And why are some of us okay with it simply because we haven’t yet felt their boot heels on our throats?
If you really believe both of the above arguments supporting police actions this past weekend, you may want to move to a country that isn’t a democracy. Or you could just wait around Canada and keep nodding in bitter and frightened approval when the government and police overstep their bounds. Your complicity will soon ensure that you no longer have to suffer the inconveniences of democracy." - Andy Verboom
Response 2:
"So Darcy, once you begin to protest you forfeit your "inalienable" rights? I thought they were inalienable? And what about the journalists who were included in the collective punishment and were beaten and had their equipment destroyed? Also Darcy, you might want to keep a copy of the Canadian constitution including the Bill of Rights next to your toilet so you can wipe your ass with it, because from what you write it seems like that is the value you place upon our civil rights. When the police violate the constitution, they are violating the strict conditions under which we have given them their authority. When they do that, they nullify their own authority and become criminals themselves. You had better think long and hard about what it means for people to have rights and what it means when an officer violates those rights. They are breaking the most fundamental social contract, they are nullifying their lawful authority and they are spitting in the faces of all the veterans who fought and died so that we could have the right to protest. Those anarchists are simply put, useful idiots, and there needs to be a full scale investigation to determine which of the anarchists were police provocateurs placed there to incite violence, as the Quebec Police admitted to using such tactics against peaceful protesters during the Security Prosperity Partnership Summit in Montabello Quebec. During that peaceful protest there were masked men with rocks who were hired by the police to incite violence so they could have an excuse to crack down and bust heads. Now it has gotten worse, as there was no punishment or investigation, and what we saw at the G20 last weekend is PURE FASCISM. Therefore, you had better wake up to these dire times we find ourselves in." - Aaron Skables
No comments:
Post a Comment