Re: Tear Gas: Political and Medical Aspects

In order to make Kendall feel better, though I gave dru comments in IRC,
I'll pop a few here.

First, I think this will be a fine article. Nice job. More focused than
some of your stuff.

> Tear Gas: Political and Medical Aspects
> By Dru Oja Jay
> 
> 
>    When meetings had ended and protests subsided at the Summit of the
>    Americas in Quebec City last April, police had used a [1]total of
>    4,709 canisters of tear gas over a 72 hour period, effectively
>    filling the downtown area with gas. A [2]month later, downtown
>    residences were still contaminated by the gas, and calls for a
>    public inquiry were dismissed.

Hmm. It'd be interesting to compare with tear gas use at other protests.

I'd also love (being geeking) to know what the volume coverage for those
canisters is rated as.

>    In the aftermath, Prime Minister Jean Chretien congratulated police
>    for "conducting themselves in an exemplary manner", and noted that
>    "[protestors] had the right to protest but we will not tolerate
>    breaking the peace of the people... You have the right to speak but
>    you have to respect the law." Other officials were more cautious,
>    noting that things had gone better in Quebec than in previous mass
>    protests in Seattle or Washington DC (with the implication that
>    things were more peaceful in Quebec as a result of actions on the
>    part of police, not protesters).



>    Chretien's comments are curious, given that people who intend to do
>    serious damage would have likely forseen the need for a gas mask.

This is a little too oblique. I mean, Chretien's comments don't mention
tear gas *per se* *and* it doesn't *have* to be premediated violence that
was dispersed.

>    Despite repeated condemnations of a "violent minority", the use of
>    massive amounts of tear gas effectively (whether it was intentional
>    or not) assaulted thousands of peaceful protesters, as well as
>    residents.

Does it make a difference whether it was intentional? I'd think so. If the
police were desperately battling a sea of armed goons and ended up using a
large amount of tear gas, that's one thing. If they used it aggressively
against non-violent protesters or pre-emptively, that's another. The
former *might* (depending on the circumstances) be justified collateral
damage. The latter might be done to squelch the protests. (Or, if just
mismanagement, is still wrong.)

I think it's important to distinguish between peaceful legal protest,
peaceful illegal protest, and violent protest (of all sorts).

The mere presence of violence doesn't turn a peaceful protest violent, nor
does it make a protest illegal. It very much depends on the scope and
scale of the violence. My guess is that whatever violence that *did*
happen will be measure agaist the mythical violence "deterred" by the
agressive action.

Finally, even if the protest is *illegal* it's not at *all* clear that
tear gas is a legitimate means of dispersing or disrupting it. Indeed,
it's not at all clear that dispersing or disruptingit is proper *at all*.

[snip]
>    Aside from the rhetoric of politicians (though it light of the fact
>    that the discussions were kept secret, and the text of the FTAA
>    agreement was only released to selected corporations, Bush and
>    Chretien's [4]talk of democracy is puzzling),

As I said, this needs to be revoked a little. Indeed, I'd hook it up with
the "anti protest" stuff up top. I'm not entirely sure of the structure of
the article, so maybe that could be clarified. (I.e., it seems, almost,
What happened. What was said. What's wrong with all that. but not quite)

Also, there's some stuff in MLK's Letter from Birhmingham City Jail about
breaking a (minor) law (like permit laws). In general, it's wrong to use
minor violations of relativley minor laws as licences to go to town on
dissent.

> the use of tear gas
>    raises some serious health and human rights issues. The type of gas
>    most often used by police to deter protests is
>    o-chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile, usually referred to as CS Gas.
>    
>    CS gas, along with its relatives, CN and CR, actually consist of
>    crystals which vapourize at high temperature. CS spray irritates the
>    skin, eyes and upper respiratory tract, causing severe discomfort,
>    pain, or in high concentrations, asphyxiation. Proponents of
>    continued use of CS Gas note that when "used properly" (i.e.
			     ^^^^
			    claim?
>    outdoors, in low concentrations), it is effective in dispersing
>    crowds while causing no permanent damage.
[snip]
>    Asphysiating gasses like CS are banned for military use by a

By name? Specifically?

>    [12]protocol on chemical weapons signed in Geneva in 1925, but one
>    wouldn't know it given the rather smug comments by Prime Minister
>    Chretien and the lack of concern shown by other governments who use
>    CS gas. Indeed, the British and American governments asserted (after
>    signing the protocol) that CS was not covered because it is "not
>    harmful to man". 

Right, if this gives them cover, it's going to be hard to say that it's
banned. Someone might argue that it's just *not used* since it's
less-lethal.

> CS was allowed for specific applications (such as
>    dispersing rioting prisoners of war) later on, but remains banned
>    for general military use.

Specifically banned? Where? By what? And isn't "dispersing rioting
POWs" relevantly similar?

>    Gassing of citizens, whether peacefully protesting or simply because
>    they happen to live in the wrong place at the wrong time is
>    apparently a different matter altogether. Indeed, even in war it is
>    generally understood that medics are not to be targeted (at the very
>    least, it is in bad taste), whereas medics were quite intentionally
>    targeted in Quebec.

We talked about that :)


Cheers,
Bijan.