G20 Summit Protests

If there is already a thread on this, I apoligise. I searched around, but found nothing if that's a defense.

Some of you may be aware of the protests being planned for Wednesday in London for the G20 summit. If not, I'll include some news articles below. There were protests on Saturday, which have been written about by Guardian journalists here and here. Obviously they have their own views on it, but they are quite useful in pieceing stuff together, in my opinion. You can criticise them or whatever, as we like to do.

Do you think these protests will be as explosive as some are making them out to be? Is that just a media tactic in this case? I am wary of that opinion, but I think I'll be watching how these events develop, even though they're down there in London. The G20, despite my scepticism that they'll actually get anything effectively done, does have a high-profile line-up of world leaders. This is one of the first protests in Britain I'm more informed about, since I was baby for the Poll Tax protests, and not really qualified (for lack of a better term) for Iraq War-related protests. I don't know about many of you guys, but I get excited about things like this. Hey shoot me!

I don't think it will be very effective however. As it's mentioned in the media, the groups of far-left and moderate-left are just too mixed. No one really knows what the goal is, other than to protest against... capitalism? But there are environmentalists there too. Do they want the same things as the socialists, the communists, the unionists, or the younger guys with no particular ideological sway? Police attention has been particularly turned to the groups of anarchists planning to protest (and the bomb plot, see below). Although the so-called anarchists have been so far identifiable through black hoods and whatever, I want to ask, how do you tell a peaceful protestor from a violent troublemaker when these groups are so mixed? Let's also consider how much of the population agree with the protestors. As an example: the American anti-war protestors of the late '60s; a large proportion of the american population disagreed with their message, despite the movements getting mainstream attention.

I have sources for that, only I can't be bothered to dig them out of my work pile, because it's irrelevant.

So, any thoughts on what's in the articles or what I've just put down to think about here? This is a specific topic, so I've left out the suspicions of a "war of extremes" to hit Britain this summer. Believe me, there are some around... in the media. Is that an important point?

Articles: (to latest specific events [such as bomb plot], links generally lead off them for previous articles, all relatively similar anyway so you should only need one, five posted for whatever)
Guardian
Times
Telegraph
Independant
Sky News

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 3/30/09 04:43 PM, Scarab wrote: I want to ask, how do you tell a peaceful protestor from a violent troublemaker when these groups are so mixed?

One's holding placard, the other's holding a brick.

At 3/30/09 04:49 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: One's holding placard, the other's holding a brick.

Possibly, but that just sounds like a bit too much like a generalisation to me. In my experience, it's not always possible to guess a person's motives by looking at what they're wearing, what they're holding (in your example), etc. We can't see what people are thinking, so we're stuck there.

Obviously some are going to try and brave the security violently more than others. I just wonder whether that will lead to a difference in perception by the police and other forces. As one police officer supposedly said, as quoted in one of the journalist articles above, the protestors are generally protesting against "the usual stuff". If that's the case, is it more correct to clump the extremists and the moderates together? It's not, but should they do so?

In case you haven't been reading about it, there were large demonstrations (useful video there also) yesterday. Unfortunately, a man has died which really shows up both sides of the conflicts. Was violence avoidable? I wish it were, but with such a mix of groups with different agendas, I'd have to say innocent people (protestors or not) were bound to end up with something nasty.

The majority of debate now runs along the lines of policing tactics, which I'm just looking into. Anyway, I thought it would be worth a post for the links and for this last bit, as it seems to be in the Politics forum's back yard so to speak.

The Guardian pay me by the link.

[Memorize]

At 3/30/09 05:33 PM, KemCab wrote: Socialists and anarchists, what do you expect. Globalization's happening, get over it.

Because obviously what we were doing globally before was working wonders.

[morefngdbs]

At 3/30/09 04:43 PM, Scarab wrote: So, any thoughts on what's in the articles or what I've just put down to think about here?

;;;;
I can understand why people are protesting.
GREED.
the greedy bastards in the banking/financial sectors of this world trying every sleazy trick in the book to maximize their profits to the detriment of everyone else.

A worthy reason to be upset with our leaders ,for going along hand in hand (for the most part) with these crooks for years .

Where's Sari ...surely she was protesting a worthy cause like this one.

[Al6200]

At 3/30/09 05:33 PM, KemCab wrote: Socialists and anarchists, what do you expect. Globalization's happening, get over it.

Socialists and Anarchists are both fools for opposing globalization. Socialists benefit because there will only be a global system which can be reformed without being threatened by outside competition. Anarchists benefit because the global system becomes less redundant and more vulnerable to attack.

At 4/2/09 12:10 PM, morefngdbs wrote: A worthy reason to be upset with our leaders ,for going along hand in hand (for the most part) with these crooks for years .

I agree. For the most part, I'd be happy to see just some moderate change even if it's just to demonstrate what could possibly be done to help the general masses of people. I'm yet to actually read on what's been accomplished so this post may already be outdated. Sorry about that!

Another thing I was reading on it, I am critical of the extremist anarchist "go after anyone in a suit" stance. Those are sadly the ones who get in the news, the ones shown hurling things everywhere without real explanation of their cause. People see this and are set against the general message the more peaceful protestors wanted to put across. People see it and work out justification for restricting the movement of both peaceful protestors and even passer-bys who had nothing to do with the whole thing, by the police.

While I try to say that the workers in the banking industry have done absolutely nothing wrong, some in the banks around the protests were waving ten-pound notes at the protestors from safe positions, which is really provocation, as I discussed with someone earlier today. Making people angrier and angrier in a situation like that doesn't solve anything really. Maybe it's because, as I say, the extremists get all the air-time and the whole thing gets distorted, I don't know.

Hmm, I don't know what we need.

[D2Kvirus]

At 3/30/09 04:49 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote:

At 3/30/09 04:43 PM, Scarab wrote: I want to ask, how do you tell a peaceful protestor from a violent troublemaker when these groups are so mixed?

One's holding placard, the other's holding a brick.

The ones holding sticks tend to have the words "Metropolitan Police" emblazoned on their high visibility bibs.

There was one cliip the BBC showed in the news headlines once (and never again) on Wednesday, where a guy was walking along and a policeman poked his baton into his ribs, so he turned around and you could lipread him saying "What the fuck did you do that for?" when three officers charged in and tackled him to the ground.

There was also an article in yesterday's Grauniad about the police tactics, and how they stuck to the book in case of using common sense. And, if you haven't seen the Youtube footage by now, here it is, with commentary.

[Dawnslayer]

At 4/4/09 04:35 PM, Contipec wrote: Capitalism promotes poverty and destruction. Of course people protest against it.

Look at Venezuela, for example. Prior to the Revolution in 1999, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Italians, and the Jewish were the people that ran Venezuela.

Can you source this information?

Oh yeah, and everyone else was screwed without any opportunity in life, like, second class citizens.

I'm not surprised by this, but nor will I automatically subscribe to the opinion that only foreigners were responsible.

Now, thanks to the Revolution, Venezuela finally belongs to Venezuelans and not to some foreign groups. The same should happen elsewhere as well. Europe should not be run by a couple British, USA and Jewish people.

Again, can you support your opinion with a source? Last I checked the nations of Europe weren't subservient to these powers. If you're going to lump people together, make sure you can back up your reasons.

[Korriken]

At 4/4/09 04:35 PM, Contipec wrote: Capitalism promotes poverty and destruction. Of course people protest against it.

Capitalism provides an opportunity for the individual to thrive if he desires it enough and has the willpower to develop and execute a plan that works. Socialism removes this opportunity and guarantees that everyone has a similar level of wealth.... a low one. It also removes the need for a person to be self motivated and self sufficient as the government will provide for anyone that doesn't want the provide for themselves. It also gives the government the green light to grow and expand, in both size and power, becoming the dominant force in society with no fear from its people.

Look at Venezuela, for example. Prior to the Revolution in 1999, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Italians, and the Jewish were the people that ran Venezuela. Oh yeah, and everyone else was screwed without any opportunity in life, like, second class citizens. Now, thanks to the Revolution, Venezuela finally belongs to Venezuelans and not to some foreign groups. The same should happen elsewhere as well. Europe should not be run by a couple British, USA and Jewish people.

yes, you're beloved OPEC nation of Venezuela. Such a massive train of socialism on a golden track..... a golden track that is running out. I wonder what life will be like in Venezuela in about 40 years when Oil exports are all but gone and better sources of energy take over. Perhaps Chavez's successor will figure something out, perhaps not. I'd be a shame if that oil ran out and there was nothing to replace it. A GDP drop of 30% would wreck a country, especially since its about 90% of its exports.

Enjoy it while it lasts. Perhaps when Biofuels get big Venezuela can grow the crops to make it and export it to desert areas that can't grow it... along with every other country with a decent climate.