Looks Like Security Was Not Tight Enough
Oh yeah. We are soooooo concerned about all the poor people in the world. Just burn a couple of police cars and smash a few windows.
Oh. And CBC's website provides a link to this page: Get Off the Fence
The "convergence" thanks you, CBC, for directing "the people" to this important website.
Meanwhile, back in Huntsville, CBC is ruing the fact that there were no riots to cover, making the journalists' job a bit more difficult and boring.
""There's been a lot of damage in the downtown core," the CBC's Michael Serapio reported.That should do the trick.
Michael Hyatt, who was at a Yonge and Dundas gym, said the protesters seemed to target a number of U.S.-based chains.
“It is pretty horrible what they have done to a lot of the stores here. They’ve destroyed the windows at an American Apparel — they destroyed all the windows and pulled out the mannequins and [threw] feces into the store.
“It stinks and it is unbelievable. Foot Locker is destroyed. Pizza Pizza is destroyed. They’ve kind of gone up the street and picked at every U.S. vendor they could find. It’s really kind of sad.”"
Oh. And CBC's website provides a link to this page: Get Off the Fence
"Confrontational Anti-Colonial, Anti-Capitalist
Convergence in solidarity with the
People’s First Demonstration
26 June 2010, 1pm, Queen’s Park
And then onwards to the Fence"
"The G8/G20 is meeting in Ontario from June 25-27, 2010. Toronto-based organizations of women, people of colour, indigenous peoples, the poor, the working class, queer and trans people and disabled people are organizing a people's convergence."
"On June 26th, when the march turns towards the protest pen, we invite you to go beyond the tired symbolism of parades and beyond the will of politicians. When the People First march turns back, we invite you all to continue on with us to confront the self-proclaimed G20 leaders and the security apparatus that will have occupied our city. We will take back our city from these exploitative profiteers, and in the streets we will be uncontrollable! This is a militant march where many forms of resistance and tactics are welcomed and respected."
The "convergence" thanks you, CBC, for directing "the people" to this important website.
Meanwhile, back in Huntsville, CBC is ruing the fact that there were no riots to cover, making the journalists' job a bit more difficult and boring.
"Many journalists came prepared with protective helmets and gas masks, concerned about potentially violent confrontations between police and demonstrators. It's a relief that never happened, though it's made for a sleepy news story."That's not quite collaboration, but darn close.
Labels: CBC, media bias
posted by Louise at 4:24 pm
12 Comments:
I really have difficulty asserting that protesters are not justifiably out of bounds when they destroy private property in situations like this. Tehy are indue out of bounds but I have to wonder what is expected when the initial and cintinuedbapproach to citizens is to be forwardly militant. When Toronto turns into a militarized zone with police everywhere, I have to wonder why on earth anything but unreasonable and messy conflict and destruction maybe expected.
Zach, international meetings of this type have been going on for at least a couple of decades now, maybe three. There are always mobs demonstrating in the streets. Show me one such protest that didn't end up with property vandalized or destroyed. It's what they do. It's what their objective is and it gets them the media attention they crave. It's a sick symbiotic relationship and it should end. But oh no. The media wants their story.
Well aside from the fact that there in fact have been anti-globalization protests acrossbthe pond resulting in only peaceful protest, I would counter and ask you to provide just a single example of the state not acting the role of paranoid meth head before any one even shows up. Further, I would be interested in the justification behind the rationale motivating police provocateurs as were seen in Montebello, QC.
You see, I don't approve of the destruction of private or public property and would even go so far as to say that when you have non-citizens destroying public property, it should be regarded as the destruction of private property all the same. However, this is in no way tempered by the state's propensity to go after people with incredibly excessive force. The exercises of creating free speech zones, placing antagonizing and anonymous figures in crowds, curtailing civil liberties temporarily and more are all actions that antagonize people when it absolutely does not have to be done.
I would also point out that damages like this MUST be viewed with a critical and unassuming eye. I expect that these were anti-globalization protests but since Canadian police have incited violence at these protests before (or attempted such anyway) and since even the first instances of this gaining international attention was in Seattle, 1999, it's likely safe but far from fair or objective to assume that anti-globalization protestors caused this damage. I may be missing something here though as admittedly, I've been much more enthralled with my new iPad than I have been with the news.
I agree that the media feeds and thusly tries to grow this type of stuff but you don't think the state does the same either intentionally or just via rank incompetence?
Sorry. I don't accept your premise that the police are "paranoid meth heads". They are realists and have gone out of their way to use non-harmful methods of crowd control.
Secondly, "unreasonable and messy conflict and destruction" is entirely optional. If the protesters engage in such activity simply because of a police presence, or some so called "incitement", then they must be mindless automatons incapable of forming independent thought and analysis; incapable of controlling their own behavior - children, in other words.
Does the presence of police cause you to pick up a stone and throw it through a window? Or plaster the inside of a retail store with feces? I suppose they just had to take a crap right then and there, so this cannot possibly be some tactic planned in advance. How does such behavior advance their cause, assuming their cause is really what they say it is?
I'm sorry, Zach, but these "civil liberties" you refer to are rights and rights come with responsibilities. The rent-a-riot mobs have no sense of responsibility. None. And if they really do want what they say they want, they sure have a strange way of convincing people of the justice of their cause.
I didn't say that police play the role of paranoid meth heads but I also dont buy the premise that they are realists either. I do not believe that police exercise independent and intelligent thinking in most situations because it makes heirearchial organization very difficult. In cases like the G8/G20 protests, I think police simply hear orders such as "detain people if they refuse to show you ID in this public area." and simply comply. It troubles me that the very significant majority don't balk at this violation of purr constitutional rights. No I'm sorry, I've said it numerous times on my own blog; I simply can't not respect or trust the police.
So in short, I am chatactizing various states and regional governing bodies as paranoid meth heads. Police to me are more wily ignorant servants of those acting like paranoid meth heads.
As per your second point, I mentioned 1999 Seattle for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I was in high school at the time and my particularly left leaning english teacher had let us sit and watch it all unfold on the television. In fact, a number of teachers did but she distinctly seemed to let the class focus on what was unfolding and consiquently, many of us continued watching after hours together. While we watched, a number of people clad in black started breaking windows and attempted quite plainly to incite others to violence. At the time, I remember thinking how disappointing it was to see protestors do such a thing but was glad to see that other protestors convinced them to stop while non had chosen to participate in the destruction of property. I found out years later that these people had actually been exposed as police a short time later.
The police in Greece a few years ago did the same thing and the police in Montebello QC also held rocks and sticks while encouraging others to fight. They also attempted to stage a violent encounter with police by charging the police line when a union leader was trying to stop them from being violent. Now why on earth would police stage an attack on a police line in a volatile situation like that?
Cont. Next post
I don't suppose police would fling feces into a store but frankly, with so little reason to trust police, I can't outright dismiss the notion. I also can't dismiss the notion that police either encouraged a group to do it or even infiltrated w group beforehand to encourage the development of such a plan. When I see police attitudes toward protestors, i don't often come away very impressed. It was galling to see the well publicized tshirt made by police attending a DNC event a few years ago that read something to the effect if "we get up early to beat protestors in Washington DC.". Yes Louise, it's not difficult to see police as children with guns in some cases.
Finally, rights do indeed come with responsibilities and I think government is pretty damned irresponsible. People who destroy property should be subject to some kind of justice. I have been sure here to make clear that this is my position. I do not approve of destruction of property and do not object to justice being served for such a crime. I temper that however by also making clear that I don't believe the state has the luxury of being given an ethical platform from which they can arbirearily dictate under what circumstances those right or liberties can be moderated or even curtailed. Making it an arrestable offense for instance to refuse to show police identification by sneakily reclassifying a downtown area of a major city as a public utility for instance may just piss someone off. I know it certainly gets MY goat.
If government really does value and respect the freedom of it's citizenry, it definitely has an odd way of showing it.
Oh and also, sorry about all the typos. I'm not so good with that normally but getting used to the iPad kinda compounds the problem. Heh
Spellcheck and anger management seem called for.
Musta had a run in with the police himself.
Anyway, dear Zach, you go on and on about anti-globalization fanatics. In case you haven't noticed, the groups that organized this protest encompass a full range of anti-everything-under-the-sun types. It's not about protesting against globalization. (Old lost cause, by the way. Freer markets have already proven their worth in many countries of the world. But don't let facts get in the way.) It's about smashing windows, burning cars and being "radical chic". It's about feeding the narcissism.
Anger management wouldn't have done much even if I was angry. Spellcheck is employed but so is a touchscreen keyboard that I've had for only two days now. As I said, I'm bad at typing to begin with but an iPad is compounding the problem for now. It's worth a chuckle anyway for anyone reading.
Louise, I won't let's fact get in your way. No worries there. I'm fairly sure I've never expressed myself as an anti-globalization fellahin and agree that the more free a market, the better and that certainly applies globally.
Also, I understand that these protests are about everything from anti-capitalism to spiritual woo woo embodied in tie die and a firm hatred of this thing we've come to know as soap. None of. That is relevant to what I posted. I was hoping for something more than deflection and chortling. I was disappointed.
Mission accomplished.
If that was a mission, you need even less free time than me.
Post a Comment
<< Home