Re: Dead Protester

On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 08:27:23PM -0700, Scott Forbes wheezed something about:
...     If I may, a couple more points I thought of. In a
... dispute it is possible to determine who the aggressor is by
... asking a simple question. 

Sure, I'll play your little a priori game, but it doesn't show what you
think it shows.

    If the protesters had showed up in
... this little Italian town, 

The population of which, in 1993, was almost 700,000 -- I'm not sure that's
a little Italian town.

    but the police had stayed home,
... what would have been the result? 

Of course that's not a possible outcome in the real world, since these same
leaders, who so piously claim to be democratically elected and who say they
want nothing more than to commune with each other and with "the people",
never go *anywhere* w/out massive security apparatus.

    The protesters intent on
... violence would have destroyed the town with impunity. 

This is completely false. No one went there to destroy Genoa. Period. You're
confused, I think, by media portrayals of Seattle, where there was limited,
symbolic property damage against multinational corporations *by protesters*
(the looting was not by protesters). Genoa is entirely different since it,
unlike downtown Seattle, is not a public space given over to corporate
interests. Protesters know the difference.

I will grant that there is a very tiny fringe element of the
antiglobalization movement that is more focused on fighting the cops than on
nonviolent protest, but I simply find it inconceivable that they would turn
their attention to Genoan citizens and property. It just wouldn't have
happened.

    The
... police merely tried to fend them off to protect the town,
... its inhabitants, and our elected leaders. 

This isn't true. The police did *way* more than that. Read the reports.
You're misinformed.

    On the other hand,
... what if the police had showed up and the violent protesters
... had stayed home? Nothing would have happened and we wouldn't
... be talking right now. 

No, no, Mr. Forbes, that's wrong too. The G-8 would have met and further
consolidated and perpetuated the *existing* unjust, antidemocratic, evil
state of affairs that exists today. Corporate globalization, structural
adjustment programs, antidemocratic institutions of international trade
governance would all have been *strengthened*, and that's a direct cause of
harm all over the planet.

    Thus the police did not start the
... fight as you suggest.

Ah, here's the wrong conclusion. Even given your poor premises, to conclude
this is merely to mistake the capacity or ability to use force with the
actual use of force and aggression. All you've said is that the police
wouldn't have acted repressively had there not been anyone there to repress.
Well, duh!

And murderers and rapists wouldn't murder or rape if they lacked all access
to other people.

...     My second point is regarding the hypocrisy of the
... protesters. One was interviewed and she complained that her
... right to free speech had be taken away. 

And well it may have been; but are you also prepared to impute to the entire
police force the opinions and statements of any single individual cop? Sheesh.
 
 
    First, violence is
... not speech. 

And you know that this protesting citizen who was interviewed was violent
how...?

    Further, the protesters' stated goal was to
... disrupt and shut down the summit. That is the real threat to
... speech. 

Well, as you said, violence is not speech. Further, the speech of
democratically elected leaders is not absolutely protected. Their meeting is
aimed at perpetuating and extending an unjust system.

When the democratically elected leaders of Southern cities and states were
meet by the determined protests of civil rights leaders, was that also some
intolerable imposition against their rights?

    They did not want our leaders to speak to each
... other. 

Bah! First, the G-8 meetings are political symbols; real work happens in
other venues, as you should well know. Second, the substance of these highly
symbolic meetings is the perpetuation of an unjust system. I recognize no
general obligation to *avoid* disrupting the planning and maintenance of an
unjust social system.

    The leaders were not wearing black ski masks and
... smashing windows. They were there to talk. 

And what were they there to *say*? Does that not matter at all? Oops, you're
biased in favor of the authorities, so I guess it doesn't matter.

    The protesters
... were uninvited guests with bad manners who themselves were
... the threat to free speech.

If you say so. I say there's no such thing as free speech, and it's a good
thing too.

The murdered protester was *from* Genoa. Did he need an invitation? What
about other Italian citizens, did they need invitations?

You can't have it both ways: either Italy is a democratic state in which
leaders are elected and *opposed* by the sovereign, the people; *or* you can
play at democracy talk only when it suits your position.

...     I want the police to protect my president, Britain's
... Prime Minister, Italy's Premier, and all the rest. The
... police did their job and I would support them until I saw a
... reason not to.

Okay, let's test that claim: can you state any conceivable conditions under
which you'd cease supporting the police? How about the anal rape by plunger
of Abner Louima in a NYC precinct house? How about shooting Amadou Diallo 47
times in the vestibule of his own apartment for touching his wallet?

Cheers,
Kendall Clark