Sorry to do a bit of a post-and-run but I am off to bed. Hopefully there will be some replies once I get back to the comp.
I just read the above article, about the anti-NAFTA protests in Miami, and have some questions.
The first one would be: HOLY SHIT IS THIS TRUE?
If it is, HOW can that be allowed and what is the public opinion about it?
Has anyone seen the photos and videos from this?
Is the writer grossly exaggerating or is it really that bad?
Anyway I’m a bit too startled and too tired to think straight so I’ll refrain from making any statements.
That article is way overblown, in my opinion. I live in Miami and was watching this live (streaming video and TV) whenever I could. Parts such as
and
are pretty wild exaggerations,
and
are quite accurate. There was a serious police presence, they kept the protestors in the protest area, and when the event was over, there were no storefronts smashed, or cars burned and overturned, and
They were not restrained due to the nice weather, they were restrained due to the imposing and overwhelming police presence.
My reaction is also that the article is exaggerated (and not particularly well written). Given the amount of damage inflicted by past FTAA riots, my sympathies aren’t with the protestors.
Yeah the article is apparently biased, in teh same way as the replies to this thread.
I don’t know exactly why a cop on a bicycle is so funny but that wasn’t the part that worried me, it was these ones:
God knows we’ve had our share of police brutality over the years in Europe, and recently during EU summits etc. Had I been active on this board when that was going on I would have posted about it, doesn’t make this any less relevant. I don’t see why you have to get so defensive about it, and frankly, that attitude makes me wonder what you’re so afraid of.
The thread about “US Military Inhibits Legal Protests” and the various comments on Bush’s attitude towards this makes it relevant to ask if this is a changeshift in US internal policy.
Well the New York Times has put some scope to the whole thing 70,000 protestors, a couple hundred anarchists.
and
The over kill seems an inevitable result of the increasingly violent protests. If the protests continue to contain elements that insist on destroying people’s property then the police are obliged to provide an overwhelming force to discourage that. The unfortunate consequence is that the chance of misunderstandings and subsequent violence increases.
The main reason that the Miami police are agressively monitoring and breaking up illegal assemblies forcibly is fear of the “Seattle model”, where groups of protesters rampaged through the streets buring and looting.
Most of the pieces I have seen handwringing about the “Miami brutality” is from corn fed, overwhelmingly white, middle and upper middle class college age girls and boys who are simply stunned that the mean ol’ police won’t cooperate with them, and are physically dispersing them. The howling “How dare they!” class outrage in these articles is almost palpable.
The only change in policy is in dealing with these anti-globalization demonstrations over and over. The cops have learned that these things quickly escalate out of control if they don’t use good hard police tactics, they might say. Obviously, if you are out in the middle of a battle between violent demonstrators and heavily armed police officers things are going to suck.
Problem is, Miami has been preparing for this as long as the anarchists have. Just because you want a revolution doesn’t mean the powers that be will let you have one. First rule of revolution: it hurts.
I think there’s a serious possibility that the aggressiveness shown by the police escalates the violence. Several of the actions depicted in this case also seem way unproportional.
What about the people (the vast majority) that wanted to practise their right to peachefully assemble and protest? Aren’t their rights being violated? Isn’t that a problem? Can you beat up 100 protesters because some of them intended to be violent?
I don’t think the protesters should be “in the shit” because they want to protest. There’s two trends that I don’t liek here:
Cops using extremely unproportional responses. You throw a can and they shoot you in the face with rubber bullets.
Assuming protesters are “guilty” until proven innocent. Basically treating everyone as if they were a rock-throwing anarchist even if they aren’t.
There’s no way I’d go to a protest under those circumstances, and isn’t that a bad thing? That you drive away “normal” people from a democratic forum? Especially now, with voting participation on the decline, shouldn’t you encourage people to be politically active?
Ok, Grey. I’m standing next to you. I throw a bottle. Police beat me up for throwing the bottle and you for standing next to a guy throwing the bottle.
Now please give me a cite where I or anyone else says anything about being “allowed to riot”. When I say peaceful assembly, I don’t mean riot. When I say protest or demonstrate, I don’t mean riot.
I realise it would be easier to argue if my position was that people should be allowe to rape, pillage and plunder, and there should be no law enforcement, but that isn’t my position so please don’t argue against it pretending it is. Thank you.
I must have missed the bit where peaceful protesters automatically get smoke bombs as part of the kit.
I suppose if it was only 1 person throwing stones, smoke bombs, smashing windows, destroying other people’s property, there would be little to no need for rubber bullets. If it was just you throwing bottles I’d make you stop.
Unfortunately it isn’t just you (not you specifically of course). Past protests at the WTO, G8 and now the FTAA force police to take measures where overwhelming force is required to maintain order. Do I think police should be brought up on charges for their misdeeds? Damn right. Do I think they should do everything legally possible to protect people and property? Damn right. No city wants to go through what Geneva and Seattle did.
