Showing posts with label Black Bloc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Black Bloc. Show all posts
Saturday, June 18, 2011
In Their Own Words: Harsha Walia on the Black Bloc
Those familiar with left-wing rhetoric know full well that "diversity of tactics" is, essentially, a code phrase for violence. A "diversity of tactics" is an action in which violent tactics are tolerated alongside non-violent tactics.
As Harsha Walia of No One is Illegal points out, the Black Bloc tactic is not as marginal among the far-left as many would prefer we believe. Organizers of actions such as the "2010 Heart Attack" anti-Olympic rally communicate with the Black Bloc about their participation in these activities, and even seem to know who the Black Bloc are.
Most damningly, Walia explains that the far-left uses the terrorist activities of the Black Bloc -- and that's very much what the Black Bloc's activities are -- as cover in order to divert scrutiny from non-violent protest tactics.
Walia concludes by insisting that the Black Bloc's allies on the far-left are obligated to publicly keep silent about the Black Bloc's activities.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
No, Vancouver, You Can't Blame This One on the Black Bloc
Anarchist terrorists couldn't have planned this any better themselves
No sooner had it become clear that the Vancouver Canucks had lost the Stanley Cup to the Boston Bruins, it became equally clear that some Canucks fans weren't going to let it go quietly.
Frankly, all too many.
But as violence swept through Vancouver, some people -- such as TSN's Bob McKenzie and CTV's Rob Brown -- blamed the violence on the famed Black Bloc.
A pack of black-clad anarchist thugs who take any international conference as ane excuse to show up and terrorize the local population, the Black Bloc very likely had absolutely no hand whatsoever in the violence following the Canucks game.
First, there's the obvious: a professional hockey championship reeks of too much consumerism for such individuals to be there for their intrinsic pleasure. Then there's the looting. The Black Bloc smashed store windows in Toronto, but few people can recall them actually stealing anything. At least in that meagre sense, they're comparatively honest.
And, quite frankly, hockey fans are far too likely to respond to a Black Bloc rioter by simply beating the shit out of them than a peaceful protester is.
So one can assure themselves that cowards like Alex Hundert would shy away from hockey fans and gravitate toward peaceful left-wing protesters: the latter he can take advantage of. The former he cannot.
Even so, the Vancouver 2011 riot couldn't have gone down any better for the Black Bloc if they had planned and orchestrated it themselves.
Now, the Black Bloc and their water-carriers on the left -- such as No One is Illegal's Harsha Walia -- have a violent incident to point to and declare that the Black Bloc's political violence isn't nearly as repugnant as many would consider it. They'll declare that ordinary citizens, fueled by alcohol and their own frustrated sense of entitlement, can be just as violent as they are.
And who is anyone to say that they aren't right about that?
It doesn't make what the Black Bloc does OK. Nothing accomplishes that particular rhetorical feat.
But Vancouver cannot blame this riot on the Black Bloc. The task of assigning blame will be much more difficult for them than that. They have to look into the eyes of their fellow Canucks fans and wonder if this was a honourable and peaceful fan -- as this author believes the majority of them were -- or if it was another one of these thugs ruining the experience for everyone else.
It should even lead to some soul-searching for the city of Vancouver, just as the 2006 riots led to soul-searching among Edmontonians.
The Black Bloc wasn't to blame for the Edmonton riots. We were. In some way, we all were. The same sad reality applies to Vancouver as well.
Hopefully, next year -- when the Canucks contend for the Stanley Cup again, and hopefully win -- Vancouver will be able to do it better. Then there will be no blame to worry about, and they'll all be able to share the credit.
No sooner had it become clear that the Vancouver Canucks had lost the Stanley Cup to the Boston Bruins, it became equally clear that some Canucks fans weren't going to let it go quietly.
Frankly, all too many.
But as violence swept through Vancouver, some people -- such as TSN's Bob McKenzie and CTV's Rob Brown -- blamed the violence on the famed Black Bloc.
A pack of black-clad anarchist thugs who take any international conference as ane excuse to show up and terrorize the local population, the Black Bloc very likely had absolutely no hand whatsoever in the violence following the Canucks game.
First, there's the obvious: a professional hockey championship reeks of too much consumerism for such individuals to be there for their intrinsic pleasure. Then there's the looting. The Black Bloc smashed store windows in Toronto, but few people can recall them actually stealing anything. At least in that meagre sense, they're comparatively honest.
And, quite frankly, hockey fans are far too likely to respond to a Black Bloc rioter by simply beating the shit out of them than a peaceful protester is.
So one can assure themselves that cowards like Alex Hundert would shy away from hockey fans and gravitate toward peaceful left-wing protesters: the latter he can take advantage of. The former he cannot.
Even so, the Vancouver 2011 riot couldn't have gone down any better for the Black Bloc if they had planned and orchestrated it themselves.
Now, the Black Bloc and their water-carriers on the left -- such as No One is Illegal's Harsha Walia -- have a violent incident to point to and declare that the Black Bloc's political violence isn't nearly as repugnant as many would consider it. They'll declare that ordinary citizens, fueled by alcohol and their own frustrated sense of entitlement, can be just as violent as they are.
And who is anyone to say that they aren't right about that?
It doesn't make what the Black Bloc does OK. Nothing accomplishes that particular rhetorical feat.
But Vancouver cannot blame this riot on the Black Bloc. The task of assigning blame will be much more difficult for them than that. They have to look into the eyes of their fellow Canucks fans and wonder if this was a honourable and peaceful fan -- as this author believes the majority of them were -- or if it was another one of these thugs ruining the experience for everyone else.
It should even lead to some soul-searching for the city of Vancouver, just as the 2006 riots led to soul-searching among Edmontonians.
The Black Bloc wasn't to blame for the Edmonton riots. We were. In some way, we all were. The same sad reality applies to Vancouver as well.
Hopefully, next year -- when the Canucks contend for the Stanley Cup again, and hopefully win -- Vancouver will be able to do it better. Then there will be no blame to worry about, and they'll all be able to share the credit.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
No Tears For Alex Hundert
Black Bloc terrorist sympathizers decry alleged injustice
Across Canada yesterday, small handfuls of Canadians rallied in support of a terrorist.
For those whom the face of terrorism is a militant Muslim extremist, they would do well to reevaluate that image. As in this case, the terrorist in question is Alex Hundert, who is responsible for organizing numerous Black Bloc protests across Canada.
Predictably, Hundert's sympathizers decried the injustice of his incarceration. They claim that Canada is oppressing him, regardless of the facts.
“I’ve organized alongside Alex for about four years now. It’s personal for me that my friend is being arrested by police after being at a panel,” whined activist Chelsea Taylor. “They are really ratcheting up the levels of police harassment and intimidation.”
Of course what Taylor declines to mention is that Hundert's arrest isn't a case of "police harassment" or "intimidation".
In fact it was the Black Bloc Hundert helped organize who intimidated fellow protesters and bystanders during the G20 riots. Arresting them is not a case of "police harassment", it's a simple matter of gettinging criminals and terrorists off of Canada's streets.
And what a shame that is. Not.
Unshockingly, Hundert himself continues to try to pass off his disingenuous claim that he's been repressed.
"Too much attention has been paid to a small number of cases of repression, particularly my own, when people need to be focused on and fighting back against broader patterns of oppression that flow from the racist capitalist system propagated by the G20 states, their corporations, their militaries, and their police," Hundert is reported to have recently said to "an ally".
Of course for Hundert to claim that he's being repressed is brazenly mendacious. He has been in the practice of organizing violent political protests designed to intimidate Canadians. That is the definition of terrorism.
Moreover, Hundert's protests have also been designed to provoke violent police response. It's unfortunate that the mismanagement of the G20 riot by law enforcement eventually led to unacceptable responses. In that regard, Hundert got what he wanted.
But whether his supporters like it or not, Hundert seems to have done the crime. Now it's time for him to do the time. This time around he's declined bail, which is a good thing: it keeps him in jail where he belongs.
Now all that remains to be done is to ensure that Alex Hundert is sentenced to as much time as the Canadian justice system allows. Alex Hundert belongs in jail, and it's up to the courts to make sure that he stays there -- and his followers can just go right ahead and cry the rest of Canada a river.
Across Canada yesterday, small handfuls of Canadians rallied in support of a terrorist.
For those whom the face of terrorism is a militant Muslim extremist, they would do well to reevaluate that image. As in this case, the terrorist in question is Alex Hundert, who is responsible for organizing numerous Black Bloc protests across Canada.
Predictably, Hundert's sympathizers decried the injustice of his incarceration. They claim that Canada is oppressing him, regardless of the facts.
“I’ve organized alongside Alex for about four years now. It’s personal for me that my friend is being arrested by police after being at a panel,” whined activist Chelsea Taylor. “They are really ratcheting up the levels of police harassment and intimidation.”
Of course what Taylor declines to mention is that Hundert's arrest isn't a case of "police harassment" or "intimidation".
In fact it was the Black Bloc Hundert helped organize who intimidated fellow protesters and bystanders during the G20 riots. Arresting them is not a case of "police harassment", it's a simple matter of gettinging criminals and terrorists off of Canada's streets.
And what a shame that is. Not.
Unshockingly, Hundert himself continues to try to pass off his disingenuous claim that he's been repressed.
"Too much attention has been paid to a small number of cases of repression, particularly my own, when people need to be focused on and fighting back against broader patterns of oppression that flow from the racist capitalist system propagated by the G20 states, their corporations, their militaries, and their police," Hundert is reported to have recently said to "an ally".
Of course for Hundert to claim that he's being repressed is brazenly mendacious. He has been in the practice of organizing violent political protests designed to intimidate Canadians. That is the definition of terrorism.
Moreover, Hundert's protests have also been designed to provoke violent police response. It's unfortunate that the mismanagement of the G20 riot by law enforcement eventually led to unacceptable responses. In that regard, Hundert got what he wanted.
But whether his supporters like it or not, Hundert seems to have done the crime. Now it's time for him to do the time. This time around he's declined bail, which is a good thing: it keeps him in jail where he belongs.
Now all that remains to be done is to ensure that Alex Hundert is sentenced to as much time as the Canadian justice system allows. Alex Hundert belongs in jail, and it's up to the courts to make sure that he stays there -- and his followers can just go right ahead and cry the rest of Canada a river.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Well Done, Judy Rebick
Rebick hosts black bloc leader at discussion panel
Canadians disgusted by the actions of violent protesters at the G20 Summit in Toronto are still waiting for justice for those actions.
As police continue to use sophisticated investigation techniques to identify rioters and arrest them, that justice grows ever-nearer. But for at least one alleged organizer, that comeuppance may be closer yet.
Alex Hundert, one of those accused of organizing the violence at the G20 summit, was re-arrested afer violating the terms of his $100,000 bail.
Even more interesting than the arrest, however, was the circumstances of the arrest: he was arrested following an appearance at a forum panel, at Ryerson University, organized by Judy Rebick.
Characteristically, Rebick denounced the arrest.
"It was a meeting, a calm, peaceful discussion of issues on people’s minds,” Rebick complained. “It’s an outrage that he was arrested for discussing issues, an outrage.”
As a condition of his bail, Hundert was prohibited from taking part in political protests, such as the ones he soiled in Toronto.
Of course, if the broad collection of groups protesting at the G20 summit really had no connection to the black bloc protesters -- and factually, the vast majority of them didn't -- Rebick has made that a very hard case to defend by hosting Hundert at her event.
It isn't even the first time Rebick gave Hundert a forum.
In March of this year Rabble.ca published an article, written by Hundert, in which he admitted to using black bloc tactics as part of anti-Olympic protests.
In the article, Hundert crows brazenly about his anarchist theories, and seems to suggest that anarchism is the only alternative to what he deems "neo-colonialism":
Moreover, the black bloc puts peaceful protesters at risk for violent retaliation by police officers venting their frustration at the poor decisions of their commanding officers (who famously ordered riot police at the Toronto summit to stand down because they were "too intimidating").
For her own part, Rebick had, at that point, been wise enough to criticize the black bloc's activities. Hundert, however, was having none of it:
Remarkably, Hundert has imagined for himself a world wherein the black bloc can deliberately provoke extreme reactions from police and then divest himself of any responsibility:
Regardless of the "solidarity" that Alex Hundert claims, most of the peaceful protesters at the G20 Summit have attempted to distance themselves from he and the black bloc, even chanting "shame on you" at them during the event itself.
Yet Rebick has drawn Hunder ever-closer, much to the discredit of herself and the movement she represents.
For that, one simply has to say: well done, Judy Rebick. Well done.
Or at least one would if she hadn't also contributed to the discredit of peaceful organizations that don't deserve to share in her discredit.
Canadians disgusted by the actions of violent protesters at the G20 Summit in Toronto are still waiting for justice for those actions.
As police continue to use sophisticated investigation techniques to identify rioters and arrest them, that justice grows ever-nearer. But for at least one alleged organizer, that comeuppance may be closer yet.
Alex Hundert, one of those accused of organizing the violence at the G20 summit, was re-arrested afer violating the terms of his $100,000 bail.
Even more interesting than the arrest, however, was the circumstances of the arrest: he was arrested following an appearance at a forum panel, at Ryerson University, organized by Judy Rebick.
Characteristically, Rebick denounced the arrest.
"It was a meeting, a calm, peaceful discussion of issues on people’s minds,” Rebick complained. “It’s an outrage that he was arrested for discussing issues, an outrage.”
As a condition of his bail, Hundert was prohibited from taking part in political protests, such as the ones he soiled in Toronto.
Of course, if the broad collection of groups protesting at the G20 summit really had no connection to the black bloc protesters -- and factually, the vast majority of them didn't -- Rebick has made that a very hard case to defend by hosting Hundert at her event.
It isn't even the first time Rebick gave Hundert a forum.
In March of this year Rabble.ca published an article, written by Hundert, in which he admitted to using black bloc tactics as part of anti-Olympic protests.
In the article, Hundert crows brazenly about his anarchist theories, and seems to suggest that anarchism is the only alternative to what he deems "neo-colonialism":
"21st-century analysis is moving beyond the empty rhetoric of 'revolutionary acts.' We no longer wish to seize the machinery of the State to use it for our own ends; we wish to see it dismantled, to be replaced by something other than a new Euro-American colonialism. A better world than that is possible, but it cannot come about until we move beyond the dominant paradigms of our culture. Statism and white supremacy must be resigned to the dustbins of history."In the article, he continues to espouse the benefits of "diversity of tactics":
"Part of the strength of the anti-Olympic campaign, as a watershed for the new anti-colonial movement, has been the solidarity and unity around a "diversity of tactics." Part of that solidarity is rooted in the idea that you cannot attack one part of the movement without attacking the whole. When we remember to defend each other, we also remember to work together to build the movement and our communities. This cannot be done by succumbing to the classic colonial tactic of divide and conquer. Diversity of tactics means that one day we smash the system and the next we build alternatives. The Black Block is a wrecking ball tactic that makes space for more mainstream or creative tactics. The anarchists who participate in the Bloc are for the most part solid community organizers and people who are at the forefront of making space for creative alternatives to capitalism and colonialism. A diversity of tactics is meant to be complimentary -- different tactics demonstrate different values and objectives, and all must be viewed in sum."Of course, all of this comes across as pure fallacy. Canadians who witnessed the acts the black bloc committed at the G20 summit know full well that the black bloc aren't defending their fellow protesters. Rather, they're simply staging attacks on private property and persons that are poorly-justified even by their own meagre standards.
Moreover, the black bloc puts peaceful protesters at risk for violent retaliation by police officers venting their frustration at the poor decisions of their commanding officers (who famously ordered riot police at the Toronto summit to stand down because they were "too intimidating").
For her own part, Rebick had, at that point, been wise enough to criticize the black bloc's activities. Hundert, however, was having none of it:
"What Judy Rebick, and many other critics who have had little to do with the anti-Olympic movement, have entirely failed to notice is the fact that the Black Bloc was supported by almost every constituency of the ORN. This show of solidarity was not divisive -- it brought us together and has built deep trust between activists who, in the past, have often had very little to say to each other.In one fell swoop, Hundert manages to locate all of these groups -- most notably the Council of Canadians -- within the extreme underbelly of Canada's radical far-left. Hundert appropriates to himself support from even the moderate organizations among them to his anarchist cause.
Organizations that were publicly represented include (or had individual members present and unmasked): No One Is Illegal, the Council of Canadians, PETA, the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), StopWar.ca, Gatewaysucks, the Vancouver Anti-Poverty Committee, Food Not Bombs, and many more. None of those organizations have denounced the actions of the Black Bloc that day. And they can't, because their members know that on that day, they were there to support the Black Bloc. Anyone who says that they didn't know what was going to happen is lying. There were 200 people in black with masks on, and 'Riot 2010; has been a rallying call for the movement for more than two years now. Everyone knew what was going to happen, and they all marched anyway."
Remarkably, Hundert has imagined for himself a world wherein the black bloc can deliberately provoke extreme reactions from police and then divest himself of any responsibility:
"After the police clashed with the Bloc that day, and affinity groups were forced to scatter (the Black Bloc doesn't do peaceful arrests -- the tactic dictates mutual protection from the police instead), the majority of the 'non-violent' marchers continued in support. Some of them allowed themselves to be arrested by the frustrated police. Blaming anyone other than the police for the conduct of the police is merely a legitimization of the police presence on our streets -- it would be like blaming the poor for the criminalization of homelessness. I expect people to know better. Cops are no more than armed thugs-for-hire."That was, of course, in March of 2010. It is now September, after the G20 riot, and Judy Rebick is still providing a platform from which Hundert can proclaim his extreme radical views.
Regardless of the "solidarity" that Alex Hundert claims, most of the peaceful protesters at the G20 Summit have attempted to distance themselves from he and the black bloc, even chanting "shame on you" at them during the event itself.
Yet Rebick has drawn Hunder ever-closer, much to the discredit of herself and the movement she represents.
For that, one simply has to say: well done, Judy Rebick. Well done.
Or at least one would if she hadn't also contributed to the discredit of peaceful organizations that don't deserve to share in her discredit.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Thank God For Global Research (Thank God For Comedy)
As discussion of the riots at the G20 Summit continue to dominate Canadian discourse, one has to take some time out from the sobering realities -- such as the reality that Toronto Chief of Police Bill Blair almost single-handedly appropriated additional police powers via deceit -- for a little comic relief.
To that, one should say "thank god for the Centre for Research on Globalization. Amidst all the genuine causes for concern surrounding the G20 Summit -- such as unwarranted police crackdowns on peaceful protesters -- the G20 riots have managed to narrowly focus the mania that has infected that organization, and should remind a great many people why they aren't to be taken seriously.
That the CRG isn't widely viewed as a haven for 9/11 truthers should be attributed strictly to the fact that they largely have no public profile. In reality, their website is a dark corner of the internet where little light tends to be cast.
9/11 truthers -- who, far more than climate change skeptics could be deemed to be akin to Holocaust deniers -- such as Christopher Bollyn, Michel Chossudovsky and David Ray Griffin, among many, many others, have disseminated their filth through the Global Research website.
Following the G20 riots, the site's 9/11 narrative seems to have infected recent events, as numerous conspiracy theories are being peddled through that website, with little to no evidence being offered in support.
For example, Rady Ananda suggests that the infamous black bloc may actually be a police psyops group. She offers no evidence whatsoever to back this suggestion, other than suggesting that the individual in this video (pictured left) is a "a clean-cut man with a military style haircut".
Apparently, the idea that any black bloc anarchist could have their hair cut short under their military-style caps is utterly unthinkable to Ananda.
There's little question that police indeed used undercover officers at the G20 summit in order to monitor protests, and to better counter organizations such as the black bloc. But when one compares the video Ananda offers to actual video of police getting their UCs out from under cover, it becomes clear that changing clothes huddled in a doorway is not the means by which such officers evade detection.
Ananda is very clearly fishing with no bait. Her colleages from Global Research would be doing the same, if they weren't fishing with scant bait.
Terry Burrows is a little more direct in his accusations.
He falls back once again to the "same shoes" argument, and uses numerous dark and grainy photographs to try to make the case. For example, he insists this photograph (pictured right) "clearly" demonstrates that the police were wearing the same shoes at the black bloc protester pictured below at left.
The self-serving hilarity of it all is undeniable.
Unfortunately for Burrows, that picture doesn't establish anything. The tread on the officer's boot -- the means by which these individuals have been establishing such claims -- are effectively entirely obscured from view.
There's nothing clear about this at all.
Burrows at one point even attempts to offer the belt and the mismatched socks of a black bloc anarchist as evidence that he's an agent provocateur. (The idea that an anarchist miscreant would flaunt fashion by mismatching his socks, or could purchase a black leather belt at the local five and dime is apparently unthinkable to Burrows.)
It's remarkable to find that individuals such as Terry Burrows and Rady Anand can't simply admit, in the wake of these riots, that they and their compatriots tolerated a terrorist element amongst their protests at the G20 Summit.
While the burning of police cars has emerged as the defining image of the G20 Summit (no matter how badly the elft wants that image to be riot cops), another image deserves consideration: it's the sight of a CUPE protester, pink CUPE flag flying high, calmly following the black bloc up a Toronto street while they smash windows and destroy property. This spectacle was captured by a CTV camera on site at the riot.
While a great many protesters eventually did stand up to the black bloc -- chanting "shame on you" at the miscreants who disrupted their peaceful and democratic protest with their violent and anti-democratic tactics -- it seems that the correspondants for Global Research were not among those principled individuals.
Rather, they set out thinking about how they could evade responsibility for their collusion with the black bloc, and smear the police in the process.
It would be shameful if their efforts weren't so utterly laughable.
To that, one should say "thank god for the Centre for Research on Globalization. Amidst all the genuine causes for concern surrounding the G20 Summit -- such as unwarranted police crackdowns on peaceful protesters -- the G20 riots have managed to narrowly focus the mania that has infected that organization, and should remind a great many people why they aren't to be taken seriously.
That the CRG isn't widely viewed as a haven for 9/11 truthers should be attributed strictly to the fact that they largely have no public profile. In reality, their website is a dark corner of the internet where little light tends to be cast.
9/11 truthers -- who, far more than climate change skeptics could be deemed to be akin to Holocaust deniers -- such as Christopher Bollyn, Michel Chossudovsky and David Ray Griffin, among many, many others, have disseminated their filth through the Global Research website.
Following the G20 riots, the site's 9/11 narrative seems to have infected recent events, as numerous conspiracy theories are being peddled through that website, with little to no evidence being offered in support.
Apparently, the idea that any black bloc anarchist could have their hair cut short under their military-style caps is utterly unthinkable to Ananda.
There's little question that police indeed used undercover officers at the G20 summit in order to monitor protests, and to better counter organizations such as the black bloc. But when one compares the video Ananda offers to actual video of police getting their UCs out from under cover, it becomes clear that changing clothes huddled in a doorway is not the means by which such officers evade detection.
Ananda is very clearly fishing with no bait. Her colleages from Global Research would be doing the same, if they weren't fishing with scant bait.
Terry Burrows is a little more direct in his accusations.
The self-serving hilarity of it all is undeniable.
There's nothing clear about this at all.
Burrows at one point even attempts to offer the belt and the mismatched socks of a black bloc anarchist as evidence that he's an agent provocateur. (The idea that an anarchist miscreant would flaunt fashion by mismatching his socks, or could purchase a black leather belt at the local five and dime is apparently unthinkable to Burrows.)
It's remarkable to find that individuals such as Terry Burrows and Rady Anand can't simply admit, in the wake of these riots, that they and their compatriots tolerated a terrorist element amongst their protests at the G20 Summit.
While the burning of police cars has emerged as the defining image of the G20 Summit (no matter how badly the elft wants that image to be riot cops), another image deserves consideration: it's the sight of a CUPE protester, pink CUPE flag flying high, calmly following the black bloc up a Toronto street while they smash windows and destroy property. This spectacle was captured by a CTV camera on site at the riot.
While a great many protesters eventually did stand up to the black bloc -- chanting "shame on you" at the miscreants who disrupted their peaceful and democratic protest with their violent and anti-democratic tactics -- it seems that the correspondants for Global Research were not among those principled individuals.
Rather, they set out thinking about how they could evade responsibility for their collusion with the black bloc, and smear the police in the process.
It would be shameful if their efforts weren't so utterly laughable.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Terrorist Apologists of the Far Left
Rioting "not violence" but "freedom of expression". Who knew?
According to a Montreal-based anti-capitalist group, the black bloc anarchists who indulged their revolutionary fantasies in downtown Toronto this past week were not violent.
Ani-Capitalist Convergance, a group whose name speaks for itself, made a variety of absurd statements that the Toronto Star obligingly reported. Those statements ranged from blatant apologism for the terrorist thugs who rampaged in downtown Toronto to making some absurd accusations.
“For us it’s not violence,” mused Mahieu Francoeur, a spokesman for the group. “It’s a means of expression and doesn’t compare to the economic and state violence we’re subjected to.”
"We respect a diversity of tactics. People are angry, particularly in the context of an event like that," Francoeur continued. "For us it's vandalism against certain institutions . . . it's symbolic and doesn't compare with violence in general in society."
In other words: the black bloc terrorists destroying storefronts in downtown Toronto weren't violent because the ACC approves of their actions. Meanwhile, the economy is violent because the ACC disapproves of capitalism.
Consider it something of a Marxist slip.
“I think the message is clear,” explained Danie Royer. “If people take back the streets, if people attack symbols of capitalism, I think this is the message."
Among the more absurd comments made by the group was an accusation that riot police in Toronto indiscriminately arrested all francophones in downtown Toronto.
“Everybody that was in the streets that talked French or even cars that had Quebec plates were arrested," Royer insisted.
The best evidence they have to offer for this is that one of their members, arrested during the riots, was held in a 20-person holding cell with 18 other francophone Quebeckers. They also note that 300 of 450 people they took to Toronto didn't return with them.
Many of them were likely arrested.
Foyer also complained that the police moved quickly to deal with the ACC.
"When we arrived by bus the police were waiting for us. They took our flags, our [signs]," she said.
Of course, there's more to the matter than Francoeur or Foryer admit. As it turns out, Anti-Capitalist Convergence, as a broader movement, peddles in various forms of support for protest movements. There's nothing inherently wrong with this.
But among those forms of support is agitprop, most simply propaganda designed for agitation.
Which explains why so many members of ACC may have been arrested in Toronto. While the black bloc riots were clearly premeditated and not provoked by the ACC, the ACC was almost certainly attempting to agitate protesters at the G20 Summit into some kind of action -- and it's already been shown that they aren't the slightest bit taken aback by violence.
Thinking more deeply about the group and its goals, it becomes clear that the group's attempts to stir up ethnic/lingual tensions in a country rendered sensitive to such matters -- due to the fact that it has been tragically prone to such tensions -- is itself an article of agitprop.
As far as being one-trick ponies goes, groups such as Anti-Capitalist Convergence not only take the cake, but they baked it too.
According to a Montreal-based anti-capitalist group, the black bloc anarchists who indulged their revolutionary fantasies in downtown Toronto this past week were not violent.
Ani-Capitalist Convergance, a group whose name speaks for itself, made a variety of absurd statements that the Toronto Star obligingly reported. Those statements ranged from blatant apologism for the terrorist thugs who rampaged in downtown Toronto to making some absurd accusations.
“For us it’s not violence,” mused Mahieu Francoeur, a spokesman for the group. “It’s a means of expression and doesn’t compare to the economic and state violence we’re subjected to.”
"We respect a diversity of tactics. People are angry, particularly in the context of an event like that," Francoeur continued. "For us it's vandalism against certain institutions . . . it's symbolic and doesn't compare with violence in general in society."
In other words: the black bloc terrorists destroying storefronts in downtown Toronto weren't violent because the ACC approves of their actions. Meanwhile, the economy is violent because the ACC disapproves of capitalism.
Consider it something of a Marxist slip.
“I think the message is clear,” explained Danie Royer. “If people take back the streets, if people attack symbols of capitalism, I think this is the message."
Among the more absurd comments made by the group was an accusation that riot police in Toronto indiscriminately arrested all francophones in downtown Toronto.
“Everybody that was in the streets that talked French or even cars that had Quebec plates were arrested," Royer insisted.
The best evidence they have to offer for this is that one of their members, arrested during the riots, was held in a 20-person holding cell with 18 other francophone Quebeckers. They also note that 300 of 450 people they took to Toronto didn't return with them.
Many of them were likely arrested.
Foyer also complained that the police moved quickly to deal with the ACC.
"When we arrived by bus the police were waiting for us. They took our flags, our [signs]," she said.
Of course, there's more to the matter than Francoeur or Foryer admit. As it turns out, Anti-Capitalist Convergence, as a broader movement, peddles in various forms of support for protest movements. There's nothing inherently wrong with this.
But among those forms of support is agitprop, most simply propaganda designed for agitation.
Which explains why so many members of ACC may have been arrested in Toronto. While the black bloc riots were clearly premeditated and not provoked by the ACC, the ACC was almost certainly attempting to agitate protesters at the G20 Summit into some kind of action -- and it's already been shown that they aren't the slightest bit taken aback by violence.
Thinking more deeply about the group and its goals, it becomes clear that the group's attempts to stir up ethnic/lingual tensions in a country rendered sensitive to such matters -- due to the fact that it has been tragically prone to such tensions -- is itself an article of agitprop.
As far as being one-trick ponies goes, groups such as Anti-Capitalist Convergence not only take the cake, but they baked it too.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
The Left's Playbook On Avoiding Responsibility for G20 Riots...
...Is to blame everyone else but themselves.
In the days following a riot in Toronto which has eventually spawned 600 arrests, Canada's left has emerged with a rather predictable playbook on avoiding their share of the responsibility.
Cast the fingers of blame everywhere but where they actually belong.
Blame the police. Blame Stephen Harper. Blame anyone but the anarchists themselves, and the left-wingers who share their agenda.
In particular, some of the claims -- that the riots were actually started by agents provocateurs -- simply don't hold water. For example, one left-wing blogger insists that the rioters and riot police were wearing the same shoe.
This is a claim that can be swept aside with a cursory examination of the photographs in question. In one case, not only is one of the rioters wearing sneakers, but the shoes are actually rather different:
By examing the photo, one can determine that the shoes worn by the rioters have a matte finish. One can also identify what appears to be laces on the shoe.
By examining the other photo offered as evidence, the importance of these details becomes evident:
The shoe worn by Toronto riot police have no laces. Moreoever, they have an entirely different finish.
They clearly are not the same shoe. It doesn't even require an enlargement of either shoe to glean this detail (although it helps).
It can't help this blogger's case that the only one of these three photographed in the act of an offense -- the one spray-painting the police cruiser -- is the one wearing the aforementioned sneakers.
But the agents provocateurs angle is simply a recycled page out of the left-wing playbook. While there were almost undoubtedly uncover officers amongst the protesters in Toronto, there is absolutely no evidence that any of them have acted in this manner.
Not that there aren't a few left-wingers who aren't interested in waiting to see any evidence:
It certainly must help to declare the police officers -- the ones who are actually trying to turn back the tide of lunacy in the midst of these riots -- guilty until they are proven innocent.
It's a martginally more advanced tactic than simply blaming Stephen Harper on account of the choice of venues, as some left-wingers have done. The detail that black bloc anarchists showed up at rural areas such as Gleneagles, Scotland, must simply evade them.
But this is, frankly, the reaction that one should expect when it becomes publicly evident that the far left shares a common agenda with lawless terrorist thugs like the anarchist black bloc.
It's so much easier to evade responsibility than to own up to it.
In the days following a riot in Toronto which has eventually spawned 600 arrests, Canada's left has emerged with a rather predictable playbook on avoiding their share of the responsibility.
Cast the fingers of blame everywhere but where they actually belong.
Blame the police. Blame Stephen Harper. Blame anyone but the anarchists themselves, and the left-wingers who share their agenda.
In particular, some of the claims -- that the riots were actually started by agents provocateurs -- simply don't hold water. For example, one left-wing blogger insists that the rioters and riot police were wearing the same shoe.
This is a claim that can be swept aside with a cursory examination of the photographs in question. In one case, not only is one of the rioters wearing sneakers, but the shoes are actually rather different:
By examining the other photo offered as evidence, the importance of these details becomes evident:
They clearly are not the same shoe. It doesn't even require an enlargement of either shoe to glean this detail (although it helps).
It can't help this blogger's case that the only one of these three photographed in the act of an offense -- the one spray-painting the police cruiser -- is the one wearing the aforementioned sneakers.
But the agents provocateurs angle is simply a recycled page out of the left-wing playbook. While there were almost undoubtedly uncover officers amongst the protesters in Toronto, there is absolutely no evidence that any of them have acted in this manner.
Not that there aren't a few left-wingers who aren't interested in waiting to see any evidence:
It's a martginally more advanced tactic than simply blaming Stephen Harper on account of the choice of venues, as some left-wingers have done. The detail that black bloc anarchists showed up at rural areas such as Gleneagles, Scotland, must simply evade them.
But this is, frankly, the reaction that one should expect when it becomes publicly evident that the far left shares a common agenda with lawless terrorist thugs like the anarchist black bloc.
It's so much easier to evade responsibility than to own up to it.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Reflections on the Prelude To the Toronto Riots
On May 18, 2010, self-dexcribed anarchists firebombed a Royal Bank of Canada branch in downtown Toronto.
In a YouTube video taken of the attack, the perpetrators cited RBC's sponsorship of the 2010 Olympics, homelessness, and the bank's financing of oil sands developments in Fort MacMurray.
The group also promised to be present at the G8 and G20 summits.
In other words, their May 18 attack was actually a prelude of what this particular group was planning at the G8 and G20 summits.
Examining a number of different postings of that video, one thing quickly becomes an apparent: those who sympathize with anarchist terrorists are nearly as much a part of the problem as are the terrorists themselves.
These videos managed to draw a number of sympathizers to defend the actions of those who perpetrated the bombing. Some of them are more lucid than others.
They tend to base their support of this attack on an economic worldview that the far left seems to share with anarchists:
Moreover, they forecast further violence:
When police arrested the three known perpetrators of the May 18 bombing, they were found to be in possession of hundreds of 7.62 mm rounds, as well as incendiary materials and explosives.
Whatever RBC bomb perps Roger Clement, Matthew Morgan-Brown and Claude Handge had in store for the G8 and G20 summits, it becomes clear that the May 18 bombing may have paled in comparison.
Not all anarchists are terrorists by any means. But international summits have demonsrated that terrorists walk among anarchist circles. Well-meaning anarchists would do well to identify such individuals and expel them from their movement.
But one thing they cannot do is justify the violence. Terrorism is terrorism, and it should always be dealt with appropriately.
Let's Talk About the "Culture of Fear"
The far left simply doesn't get it -- they didn't get it before, and they won't get it now
Writing mere hours before the outbreak of violent protests in downtown Toronto surrounding the set-to-begin G20 summit, Rabble.ca's Darren Puscas published an article entitled "Harper's aggressive plants: Canada at the G8 and G20 Summits".
Among the plans Puscas treats as "aggressive" are the promotion of budgetary austerity amidst the European economy walking a tightrope between tenuous stability and total collapse, opposition to a global bank tax, opposition to Iran's nuclear program, climate realism, and the child & maternal health program.
And one other thing: Puscas insists that Stephen Harper is propagating a "culture of fear" around the G8 and G20 summits:
For the far-left, Puscas' article is a potent and somehow welcoming fantasy, built upon a heap of other ideological fictions.
Yet as Canadians confront the reality unfolding in downtown Toronto, Puscas will likely be disappointed to learn that his propaganda cannot obscure the truth: it isn't Stephen Harper that has propogated a culture of fear around these summits, it's the far left.
After all, it isn't Stephen Harper currently smashing windows and torching police cruisers in downtown Toronto. It's the extreme anarchist denizens of the black bloc -- not an organized group, per se, but rather a pseudo-spontaneous mass intended to provide cover by allowing violent, black-clad protesters to nearly vanish within it.
When one considers Puscas' denunciation of "the insider and outsider reality that marks the global economy", it becomes clear that the violent thugs at work today share Puscas' perspective on the matter.
The goal of the black bloc is to spread fear amongst leaders and their supporters, so as to breed acquiesence to their agenda.
In other words, it's the black bloc, sharing Puscas' agenda, that are seeking to create a culture of fear.
In fact, it quickly becomes apparent that the security perimeter built around around the summit site is entirely justified in order to contain and control these violent outbursts -- Puscas' description of it clearly is not.
Not that one should expect Darren Puscas to understand this. He clearly didn't understand it when he wrote his Rabble article, and he almost certainly doesn't understand it now.
Writing mere hours before the outbreak of violent protests in downtown Toronto surrounding the set-to-begin G20 summit, Rabble.ca's Darren Puscas published an article entitled "Harper's aggressive plants: Canada at the G8 and G20 Summits".
Among the plans Puscas treats as "aggressive" are the promotion of budgetary austerity amidst the European economy walking a tightrope between tenuous stability and total collapse, opposition to a global bank tax, opposition to Iran's nuclear program, climate realism, and the child & maternal health program.
And one other thing: Puscas insists that Stephen Harper is propagating a "culture of fear" around the G8 and G20 summits:
Yet as Canadians confront the reality unfolding in downtown Toronto, Puscas will likely be disappointed to learn that his propaganda cannot obscure the truth: it isn't Stephen Harper that has propogated a culture of fear around these summits, it's the far left.
After all, it isn't Stephen Harper currently smashing windows and torching police cruisers in downtown Toronto. It's the extreme anarchist denizens of the black bloc -- not an organized group, per se, but rather a pseudo-spontaneous mass intended to provide cover by allowing violent, black-clad protesters to nearly vanish within it.
When one considers Puscas' denunciation of "the insider and outsider reality that marks the global economy", it becomes clear that the violent thugs at work today share Puscas' perspective on the matter.
The goal of the black bloc is to spread fear amongst leaders and their supporters, so as to breed acquiesence to their agenda.
In other words, it's the black bloc, sharing Puscas' agenda, that are seeking to create a culture of fear.
In fact, it quickly becomes apparent that the security perimeter built around around the summit site is entirely justified in order to contain and control these violent outbursts -- Puscas' description of it clearly is not.
Not that one should expect Darren Puscas to understand this. He clearly didn't understand it when he wrote his Rabble article, and he almost certainly doesn't understand it now.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Inventing a Scandal: Police Accused of Trying to Provoke Riots at SPP Summit
”Circumstantial evidence” suddenly conclusive
Given everything at stake at the recent Security and Prosperity Partnership summit at Montebello, Quebec (both rhetorically and politically), everyone paying attention to the summit just knew that those opposed to the SPP weren’t going to allow the summit to close without some sort of ensuing scandal.
If they don’t have a genuine one, a person had to realize they were going to invent one.
And they have.
The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada have released a video which they claims provides conclusive proof that the Quebec police force were using agents provacateurs to provoke riots as a pretext for breaking up the protest.
In the video, three masked men are shown hovering around a protest. One of them has a rock in his hand. CEP President Dave Coles is confronting them, trying to drive them away from their peaceful protest, comprising mostly of grandparents. One of them has a rock in his hand.
In a statement earlier today, Coles announced “We have proof that the three individuals who were 'arrested' after being exposed as 'agents provocateurs' were, in fact, members of the Quebec police force."
In hindsight, however, it’s a good thing that Coles is a union boss, not something a little more powerful like a federal prosecutor.
As proof, Coles and the CEP presented a still image taken from the video, wherein yellow triangles can be identified on the boot soles of not only the protesters, but also the police officers arresting them.
“I think the circumstantial evidence is very powerful,” says Kevin Skerrett, a member of Nowar-Paix, another group protesting at the summit.
Apparently, this “very powerful” “circumstantial evidence” consists of the following photograph:
The presence of the yellow triangles on the boots of the protestors has led some individuals to conclude they were police officers.
Yet, upon any further investigation, these individuals would have discovered that the yellow triangles are certification markings identifying the boots as a “class 2 toe cap with a puncture resistant sole”.
The argument that the yellow triangles on the boots identifies them as "police issue boots" falls pretty flat once one considers that these are very common boots, used by policemen and construction workers as well as miscreants who want to cause a good deal of damage at a political protest and not break their toes.
Unsurprisingly, the extreme lack of conclusiveness of the evidence presented hasn’t stopped the general hysterists of the blogosphere from trying to portray the seeming arrest of a violent protester as oppression by a police state.
Then again, it isn’t as if protesters had never before turned up to a political summit with the goal of turning peaceful protests violent. Take, for example ”Black Bloc” tactics, wherein a group of anarchists dress in black and vandalize local property.
“If a Black Bloc participant throws a brick at a store window and runs into the Bloc, she will easily blend in with everyone else. However, if a person wearing normal street clothes happens to throw a brick and run into the Bloc, chances are that she will have been filmed or photographed and later caught by the police.”
The men shown on the video offer a mediocre example of Black Bloc tactics (for one thing, there are too few of them), but an example nonetheless, one that has been present at summits ever since 1999’s famed Battle of Seattle.
It isn’t at all outside the realm of possibility that the alleged protesters were, in fact, police. If this turns out to be the case, then this is a very serious matter indeed, especially seeing that the protest being targeted consisted mostly of elderly people – “grandmothers and grandfathers” as Cole identifies them in the video.
But this is something that will have to be proven with actual evidence, not a poorly-filmed youtube video revealing base similarities between the boots worn by police and the alleged protestors arrested.
Until that proof is present, however, the ensuing moral panic over “oppression” and “police states” is entirely misplaced, and the scandal merely a political invention.
UPDATE - He's not a lawyer, is he?
Fresh from Canadian Cynic, we get a good idea of what passes for "evidence" in his opinion.
Then, to add to the hilarity, Dennis Moore weighs in:
"Looks to me like Vibram soles, specially designed for fire/police work:"
To which Cynic responds:
"Why, yes ... yes, they do. And what are the odds of that?"
But do they really?
Hmmm. Those ever-conclusive yellow triangles must have fallen off at the factory, or something...
But one supposes it just goes to show you: in Canadian Cynic's mind, it isn't just Canadian soldiers who are considered guilty until proven innocent, it's Canadian police officers, too.
UPDATE - CTV news has corrected the "yellow triangles" claims to note that the markings on the boots (of the officers, at least) look more like yellow octagons, similar to the Vibram boots logo.
This being said, the yellow markings on the bottom of the suspects' boots really do look more like triangles. Also, a closer examination of the photograph makes the treads ont the boots appear very different from that of the police officers, as the suspects' boots don't appear to have the circular treads on the pad of the sole, although this could be due to poor image inhancement on the enlarged portions of the photograph.
Given everything at stake at the recent Security and Prosperity Partnership summit at Montebello, Quebec (both rhetorically and politically), everyone paying attention to the summit just knew that those opposed to the SPP weren’t going to allow the summit to close without some sort of ensuing scandal.
If they don’t have a genuine one, a person had to realize they were going to invent one.
And they have.
The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada have released a video which they claims provides conclusive proof that the Quebec police force were using agents provacateurs to provoke riots as a pretext for breaking up the protest.
In the video, three masked men are shown hovering around a protest. One of them has a rock in his hand. CEP President Dave Coles is confronting them, trying to drive them away from their peaceful protest, comprising mostly of grandparents. One of them has a rock in his hand.
In a statement earlier today, Coles announced “We have proof that the three individuals who were 'arrested' after being exposed as 'agents provocateurs' were, in fact, members of the Quebec police force."
In hindsight, however, it’s a good thing that Coles is a union boss, not something a little more powerful like a federal prosecutor.
As proof, Coles and the CEP presented a still image taken from the video, wherein yellow triangles can be identified on the boot soles of not only the protesters, but also the police officers arresting them.
“I think the circumstantial evidence is very powerful,” says Kevin Skerrett, a member of Nowar-Paix, another group protesting at the summit.
Apparently, this “very powerful” “circumstantial evidence” consists of the following photograph:
The presence of the yellow triangles on the boots of the protestors has led some individuals to conclude they were police officers.
Yet, upon any further investigation, these individuals would have discovered that the yellow triangles are certification markings identifying the boots as a “class 2 toe cap with a puncture resistant sole”.
The argument that the yellow triangles on the boots identifies them as "police issue boots" falls pretty flat once one considers that these are very common boots, used by policemen and construction workers as well as miscreants who want to cause a good deal of damage at a political protest and not break their toes.
Unsurprisingly, the extreme lack of conclusiveness of the evidence presented hasn’t stopped the general hysterists of the blogosphere from trying to portray the seeming arrest of a violent protester as oppression by a police state.
Then again, it isn’t as if protesters had never before turned up to a political summit with the goal of turning peaceful protests violent. Take, for example ”Black Bloc” tactics, wherein a group of anarchists dress in black and vandalize local property.
“If a Black Bloc participant throws a brick at a store window and runs into the Bloc, she will easily blend in with everyone else. However, if a person wearing normal street clothes happens to throw a brick and run into the Bloc, chances are that she will have been filmed or photographed and later caught by the police.”
The men shown on the video offer a mediocre example of Black Bloc tactics (for one thing, there are too few of them), but an example nonetheless, one that has been present at summits ever since 1999’s famed Battle of Seattle.
It isn’t at all outside the realm of possibility that the alleged protesters were, in fact, police. If this turns out to be the case, then this is a very serious matter indeed, especially seeing that the protest being targeted consisted mostly of elderly people – “grandmothers and grandfathers” as Cole identifies them in the video.
But this is something that will have to be proven with actual evidence, not a poorly-filmed youtube video revealing base similarities between the boots worn by police and the alleged protestors arrested.
Until that proof is present, however, the ensuing moral panic over “oppression” and “police states” is entirely misplaced, and the scandal merely a political invention.
UPDATE - He's not a lawyer, is he?
Fresh from Canadian Cynic, we get a good idea of what passes for "evidence" in his opinion.
Then, to add to the hilarity, Dennis Moore weighs in:
"Looks to me like Vibram soles, specially designed for fire/police work:"
To which Cynic responds:
"Why, yes ... yes, they do. And what are the odds of that?"
But do they really?
Hmmm. Those ever-conclusive yellow triangles must have fallen off at the factory, or something...
But one supposes it just goes to show you: in Canadian Cynic's mind, it isn't just Canadian soldiers who are considered guilty until proven innocent, it's Canadian police officers, too.
UPDATE - CTV news has corrected the "yellow triangles" claims to note that the markings on the boots (of the officers, at least) look more like yellow octagons, similar to the Vibram boots logo.
This being said, the yellow markings on the bottom of the suspects' boots really do look more like triangles. Also, a closer examination of the photograph makes the treads ont the boots appear very different from that of the police officers, as the suspects' boots don't appear to have the circular treads on the pad of the sole, although this could be due to poor image inhancement on the enlarged portions of the photograph.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Birds of a Feather Terrorize Together
Violent protesters and Al Qaida terrorists aren't as different as you think
Question: what do the Islamic perpetrators of Thursday’s London subway bombings and those responsible for the violent G-8 protests in Scotland have in common? Answer: quite a bit, actually.
No, they aren’t acting in collusion with one another. But there are more similarities between the two than one would believe, and they circle primarily around the intentional use of violence to achieve their goals.
Both claim they’re fighting against oppression – to end the tyranny of the current patriarchy by any means necessary. Both would happily replace the current patriarchy with one of their own, and it is this that makes them all the more dangerous.
One can point to groups such as Al Qaida and see a face that is not all that different from organizations such as the Black Bloc, or (to a much lesser extent) the Earth Liberation Front – a face that threatens violence from behind a mask of anonymity. The point of it all, of course, is not violence, but fear. Fear which is to be used as a motivator in support of a political cause. It is violence under threat of further violence. As one (unnamed) anarchist promised: “This is just the start of it. Nobody wants to get arrested ahead of Wednesday. We've got a lot more planned.”
For these people, the use of violence serves a number of purposes. It is a badge of honor. It is a symbol of dedication. It is a political shortcut. More than any of this, however, it is a demonstration of defiance. And, of course, defiance breeds defiance.
There is an old saying: you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. While there is an air of naivete surrounding this parable, there is an equivalency when it comes to political activism. That is, peaceful demonstrations generally get a better response (both from the police and the public eye) than violent ones. “We want to allow the peaceful protest of the majority to take place unhindered by any rogue elements who are set on disruption and confrontation,” says Constable John Vine, speaking to press after Tuesday’s violent demonstrations in Edinburgh. “Make no bones about it, if we encounter people who are prepared to use violence to achieve their aims ... we will take robust action.”
Of course, there is always the fact that violent protests get more attention. And while one can argue that these events do more to hinder their cause than to help it, it is also true that there is no such thing as bad publicity. This is unfortunate, because it will always draw the intentions of belligerents toward violence.
Of course, some times the system does fail. The case of peaceful protesters in Vancouver who were assaulted by RCMP officers under orders from then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien comes to mind. Some times, even peaceful activists place themselves at risk of attack.
All this aside, even more so than any of these similarities, there is one other that is just as important to remember: each group is actually a minority amongst the larger groups that it claims to represent. Despite the alarmist assertations of fear mongers, the majority of Moslems are not terrorists. Furthermore, as much as political and economic conservatives would have one believe, the majority of protesters protest peacefully. To these people, a simple message must be extended: stay the course. To those who understand the power of dissent and the value of peace, keep doing as you have. There are those who appreciate what you do, for all the right reasons.
And as much as some people may want to have us believe other wise, terrorists are generally appreciated only for the wrong reasons. Ultimately, that makes all the difference.
Question: what do the Islamic perpetrators of Thursday’s London subway bombings and those responsible for the violent G-8 protests in Scotland have in common? Answer: quite a bit, actually.
No, they aren’t acting in collusion with one another. But there are more similarities between the two than one would believe, and they circle primarily around the intentional use of violence to achieve their goals.
Both claim they’re fighting against oppression – to end the tyranny of the current patriarchy by any means necessary. Both would happily replace the current patriarchy with one of their own, and it is this that makes them all the more dangerous.
One can point to groups such as Al Qaida and see a face that is not all that different from organizations such as the Black Bloc, or (to a much lesser extent) the Earth Liberation Front – a face that threatens violence from behind a mask of anonymity. The point of it all, of course, is not violence, but fear. Fear which is to be used as a motivator in support of a political cause. It is violence under threat of further violence. As one (unnamed) anarchist promised: “This is just the start of it. Nobody wants to get arrested ahead of Wednesday. We've got a lot more planned.”
For these people, the use of violence serves a number of purposes. It is a badge of honor. It is a symbol of dedication. It is a political shortcut. More than any of this, however, it is a demonstration of defiance. And, of course, defiance breeds defiance.
There is an old saying: you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. While there is an air of naivete surrounding this parable, there is an equivalency when it comes to political activism. That is, peaceful demonstrations generally get a better response (both from the police and the public eye) than violent ones. “We want to allow the peaceful protest of the majority to take place unhindered by any rogue elements who are set on disruption and confrontation,” says Constable John Vine, speaking to press after Tuesday’s violent demonstrations in Edinburgh. “Make no bones about it, if we encounter people who are prepared to use violence to achieve their aims ... we will take robust action.”
Of course, there is always the fact that violent protests get more attention. And while one can argue that these events do more to hinder their cause than to help it, it is also true that there is no such thing as bad publicity. This is unfortunate, because it will always draw the intentions of belligerents toward violence.
Of course, some times the system does fail. The case of peaceful protesters in Vancouver who were assaulted by RCMP officers under orders from then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien comes to mind. Some times, even peaceful activists place themselves at risk of attack.
All this aside, even more so than any of these similarities, there is one other that is just as important to remember: each group is actually a minority amongst the larger groups that it claims to represent. Despite the alarmist assertations of fear mongers, the majority of Moslems are not terrorists. Furthermore, as much as political and economic conservatives would have one believe, the majority of protesters protest peacefully. To these people, a simple message must be extended: stay the course. To those who understand the power of dissent and the value of peace, keep doing as you have. There are those who appreciate what you do, for all the right reasons.
And as much as some people may want to have us believe other wise, terrorists are generally appreciated only for the wrong reasons. Ultimately, that makes all the difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)