Your right to protest

[Chick]

PROTESTING IS NOT A CRIME.

PROTEST 5PM, THURSDAY APRIL 16TH

NEW SCOTLAND YARD

8 -10 BROADWAY SW1H OBG

Called by Stop the War Coalition, Palestine Solidarity

Campaign, British Muslim Initiative and others.

The tragic death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests confirms

what the Stop the War Coalition has been saying for some time;

that the police's current attitude towards protest is

confrontational, provocative and dangerous. In June 2008 the

Metropolitan police banned and attempted to criminalise a

protest at the visit of George Bush to London. They have since

tried to bring serious charges against up to 20 participants.

In January this year they brutally attacked demonstrators

protesting against the Israeli invasion of Gaza. Since then

the police have raided the homes of some of those that

protested.

The tactics of forcible corralling - so called 'kettling',

police assaults on overwhelmingly peaceful protestors and home

raids on participants add up to a major attack on the right

to protest.

The Stop the War Coalition, the British Mulsim Initiative and

Palestine Solidarity Campaign and others have called a protest

at Scotland Yard on Thursday April 16th to demand action on

these issues.

We ask all our supporters to attend this protest.

[LegalEagle-ish]

Check out the aggression of the police towards the peaceful climate camp protesters. their MO is always non-violent protest and you can hear them chanting 'shame on you' as the police hit them with their sheilds and try to goad them into retaliation.

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=69824443903&h=qNXak&u=15JyN&ref=nf

[*Bob*]

The right to protest seems to have been alive and well, in London especially, for as long as I can remember. Whether it's two dozen people outside the Zimb Embassy or a million against the war in Iraq (or two million, depending on which PR team you ask).. to be honest there hardly seems to be a protest-free week these days.

The problem with a minority of people who join the Police to crack 'eads is mirrored by a minority of people who go on 'peaceful protests' to stir up bovver for the hell of it, scrawl graffiti for a laff, piss up statues and then go home and laugh about it. It's a sad fact, but there it is.

The current police policy of containment seems to be an improvement on mounted horse and baton charging. Should a crowd of thousands with small but significant factional elements bent on just behaving like drunken toddlers be allowed to throng around the capital all will, wherever and whenever they please? I don't think so.

[LegalEagle-ish]

But what exactly are the police protecting?

Is it the bricks and mortar of the city? - I don't think so after the stood by and did nothing to prevent the RBS building being trashed.

What are they really protecting?

Could it be the dictatorial aspirations of the political puppets of big business by crushing legitimate protest?

[*Bob*]

But legitimate protests happen all the time. ALL the time. And, in the main, the majority of protesting is about push-push-push.. see what you can get away with.. keep picking away without seeming to do anything wrong. I've been on a few and specific instructions to that effect were virtually given out on the coaches en route.

That's how they work. Get a reaction, make the news, make the response seem out of proportion = eh voila.. PR victory.

[LegalEagle-ish]

So we should just accept the organs of the state, who are purported to represent our interests, chipping away at our legitimate rights instead then?

[*Bob*]

No, I think those that wish to should continue to enjoy the right to protest that already exists, hope that the minimum of dickheads turn-out on the day and try to improve the quality of police recruitment and training (and disciplinary procedures).

The recent - massive - and entirely peaceful demos in Northern Ireland are the exception to the rule. But they they hardly made the headlines. No trouble, see?

[Marmora Man]

I'm in two minds about this.

I support, wholeheartedly, the right to protest and deplore the restrictions this government has placed upon that right. Particularly the restriction on ad hoc protests in the vicinity of Whitehall. Equally, I see a strange ethic arising from some protests where there is a perceived need to provoke a reaction in order to claim the moral high ground.

Peaceful protest should involve publicising the aim and objective of the protest on the street. It should not involve damage to individuals or property or create any, substantial, disruption to the business of the city / town / area where the protest is being held.

From memory the Countryside Alliance march against the Hunting Legislation (which I took part in) and the Anti Iraq war (which I supported but did not march for) achieved their aim without violence to people, property or undue disruption. The police monitoring those marches were amiable and did not resort to any strong arm tactics.

The recent G20 protest and previous similar events have been preceded by rhetoric by certain elements of the protest designed to inflame both protesters and police into more extreme acts of protest / response. Perhaps protests against particular policies are inherently more peaceful than protests against political systems. It should be the number of attendees at any protest march that gives strength to the protest NOT actions and, on that point, the G20 protest was relatively small in numbers - leading perhaps to the need by key organisers to encourage the violent rhetoric.

Kettling does seem to be a better way of controlling a crowd than baton charges and to describe them s "police assaults" is a foolish overstatement that does nothing to make the case for protest.

On balance I won't be attending or supporting this particular protest - partly because I find the rhetoric of the The Stop the War Coalition, the British Mulsim Initiative, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other similar lobby groups distasteful and tending toward the extreme - also partly because I do not consider they (Chick) have made a sufficient case for protest.

As a further comment I would add that the Ian Tomlinson death is tragic. It should not have happened, the facts should have been made clear sooner and I do not condone it. I see it as evidence that, as in all organisations, there is a minority of foolish and violent idiots in the police forces of UK. However, it is being investigated and it has been deplored by all those in authority. For Chick to cite it as evidence to support the thesis that all police are confrontational, provocative and dangerous is itself provocative.

[mockney piers]

"[they] achieved their aim"

really?!

Other than that, a fine post.

[Marmora Man]

MP - well they publicised their opposition!

[BigPhil]

What does the protest actually hope to achieve??

I means its not exactly Rosa Parks is it?

a little bit of tv coverage, a few more arrests , maybe another window or 2 broken and then all returns to normal , joe average still goes to work , votes at voting time and switchs off for the rest of time.

If im going to take time out of my working day , I would rather be doing something important like "help for hero's" or something similar.

[LegalEagle-ish]

We do not have a direct democracy we have a representative democracy where we vote for other people to represent our views and interests.

If they stop representing the interests of the people who voted them into power, then those people have the right to voice their dissatisfaction via peaceful protest.

If we are prevented from expressing our disquiet by peaceful protest through either restrictive laws or fear of being embroilled in violence, then our democracy ceases to function properly and we move towards an elected dictatorship.

If it is decided that we should no longer be allowed to protest to voice our dissatisfaction about the way those in power are weilding that power on our behalf, what democratic avenues are left open to us?

Will we be allowed to participate in this democratic system directly like the citizens of Switzerland are? Or will those who are angry enough and frustrated enough be sucked into extremist organisations?

[antijen]

Marmora man you say kettling seems a better way of controlling the crowd other than baton charges, I am assuming you have not experienced this. there is a protest to be held against kettling; link below

http://london.indymedia.org.uk/events/1066

[Marmora Man]

I made my position pretty clear I thought - but for the record I haven't experienced "kettling" but I have experienced (in an exercise / practice situation only) baton charges and "selective abduction" of riot leaders. Believe me - kettling must be better. The latter (even in practice) was violent and frightening. Kettling, by contrast, is less violent relying upon the gradual crush of bodies to channel people in a specific direction.

[antijen]

They just follow orders

http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/992

[Brendan]

I don?t see a problem with this kettling business in an actual riot situation when the other options are direct confrontation of some sort.

What seems to have been happening thought is that the police have used it just because there is a protest not because said protest has got out of hand.

Could be wrong but that is the impression I get from the people I have spoken to who were there.

[Marmora Man]

Antijen - I don't understand your argument. Obviously you dislike kettling - but are you against all policing of protests and demonstrations - or merely anti authority?

[KalamityKel]

protest all you like but please don't sod up london travel... some of us have to work for a living ;-) :)-D

[matthew123]

We should have the right to protest and given that liberty we have a duty to behave.

Unfortunately over the course of time there is a stigma attached to protesters caused by a mindless minority, that make the majority suffer from incidents of over zealous policing. Until protest groups weed out the hotheads that are there purely to cause carnage I don't expect the Police to down their riot gear. Who'll ever forget the ransacking of McDonalds (in 1999) not to smash down the doors of Capitalism but to steel burgers for a free lunch!

[antijen]

Marmora man, I have experienced kettling whilst having my children with me, I believe I have a right to protest without being treated in this manner. I have witnessed baton charges as a method to move people, violence being used by the police on innocent non violent protestors, I am not saying all police behave like this but unlike protestors police cannot make an independant decision but must follow orders.

[Marmora Man]

Antijen,

1. I support the right to protest.

2. Some protests have violent / anti social or otherwise illegal elements.

3. It is proper that the authorities police protests - to control any violent / anti social / otherwise illegal activity.

4. Such control should be without violence but, if action is required then minimal force should be used.

5. Kettling was developed to be, and is, a less violent form of control than baton charges, mounted police and snatch squads.

5. Therefore protesting against kettling is illogical - unless you suggest a viable alternative that provides the necessary controls.

6. Police are able to make individual decisions and encouraged to do so - but as a disciplined force will usually act as if controlled by a single mind for most effective impact in certain situations. Individual police remain responsible for their actions - the "I was only following orders" defence was discredited at Nuremberg.

[antijen]

I have had police say to me they are only following orders

[antijen]

Oops cut short, I think its been shown that anti social does not only lie with the protesters, I feel the people who have control are more inclined to be anti social, violent and then when going against there own laws they are not faced with charges. Kettling is not used against violent individuals, it is a misuse of control used on peaceful protesters.

[macroban]

"Kettling" is a weasel word.

It is imprisonment without due process.

[Huguenot]

Can the protestors suggest an alternative to contain the violent fringe that attends their events? They seem unwilling/incapable of doing so.

Any other social event wouldn't get a license with this kind of track record of destruction in their wake.

Perhaps they could hold their events in fields where there's nothing to trash?