NEWS: Police and Demonstrators Clash at G8

Up to a hundred or more demonstrators caused extensive damage to car windows and store fronts, threw rocks and attempted to block access to the main highway to the G8 conference. Several police officers were injured in the melee.



This conference and these 8 representatives have a real chance to pull Africa out of the one-way rush to destruction and death in which it is headed. Millions of young children under five years old starve every year and tens of millions of people do not have access to clean drinking water.

Apparently, not everyone wants to see this conference take place which only makes one question their motives ; seeing these people use these kinds of tactics to get their point across only points up how important the conference is and how wrong they are in their style of protest. There is a way to protest and make your point without resorting to vioence and destruction.

Related News Links:
www.cnn.com
www.newsday.com
today.reut ers.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
No reason for africa to have no water.

[edit on 7-7-2005 by John bull 1]

[edit on 7-7-2005 by John bull 1]

We can protest and they listen?

When since the 1960's has such a protest worked? I have been at every May Day "Riot" in London since 2000, I have seen the Million people march against War and still nothing.

It is only when the Government's do not listen do the people resort to violence and then they are left with no choice but to listen. People seem to forget how little came about through Passive-Resistance in the 1960's and how much came about once groups like the Black Panthers forced the establishment to listen. It's one of the most flawed parts of present Historic teaching.

Odium, I disagree. All of the civil rights legislation and empowerment of minorites that took place in the 60's and after was a direct result of what you refer to as "Passive-Resistance" and was accomplished inspite of and not beacuse of violent riots and demonstrations by the Black Panther Party and others.

Non-violent protest and demonstration is the only viable and time-proven means to redress of grievances as guaranteed by our Constitution. Anarchy, is an absense of order and government, not a means to it.
The only acceptable place for violence is when all other avenues of protest and resistance have been exhausted, as in the American Revolution.

It seems that there is a lot of revisionist history making the rounds via the internet, etc which seeks to denounce peaceful protest and demonstration as weak and ineffectual when just the opposite is true; Civil rights, the end of the Viet Nam War, equal rights for women ( just to name three) all came about due to non-violent protest. Granted the changes and goals that those protesters sought were not achieved overnight but they realized that any thing worth their effort was also worth their time.

Finally, IMO, those who seek to change society and the world by violence either have not fully thought out their position or the consequences of their actions. It's my opinion that more damage is created and more barriers placed in the way of social change when those who seek it choose violent protest over, protracted & energetic, peaceful protest.

BTW: have you ever heard of a man named Mohandas Ghandi? He changed the course of his whole country by passive-resistant means.

Lightseeker

I assume you’re talking about Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi? Not Ghandi, the incorrect Westernised version of his name. I also find it amusing that you name him. Next you’ll be claiming there were not mass-violent riots throughout India when they got their Independence. Since the Rebellion of 1857, which was the catalyst for the India Independence Movement. The assassination of Mr. Sanders, Surya Sen, and the guerrilla raids on Britain. There was so much more to India’s Revolution then Gandhi and our education system (Britain) unfortunately displays peaceful protest as how India got Independence as from what I’ve seen on these forums it does in America as well. Also what about the Quit India movement and the violence which began after that?

Also I like how little you know about the Black Panthers, they never instigated a riot. They got blamed by the Government for Riots however it goes against the whole ideology of the Party which was Self-Defence. They did not fight back, till someone through the first punch. They used their Rights as American Citizens and they enforced them under the Second Amendment. They are one of the very true Patriotic American Organizations, who get slandered through the poor and bigoted education system which exists right now. The fact you lump them in with “Violent Action” groups shows you do not know what they stood for. They even helped promote some of the very first “mixed” groups of protesters, such as when they worked with the California Peace and Freedom Party.

Also go look at what the laws which “Peaceful Protest” did for Black Americans. If those laws worked, within the years they were passed then the riots and violence would have never had to happen. The simple matter of fact is, those laws played lip service to Black men and women were willing to stand up to the racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and fight back, when they needed to. It took over 20 years to get Schools to desegregate, over 20 years from when the court case was heard and it got quicker once the riots began.

Also in Britain the suffragettes actually resulted to violence, ever hear of Emmaline Pankhurst? Or the fire-bombing that went on? I doubt it, because the majority of people are not educated on such events. Furthermore, Alice Paul and Lucy Burns came over to Britain and took such knowledge of violent action back to America where they then again employed it. If you would like a list of books which talk about the Violent Riots during this movement I can give you them? It’s good reading. It shows how over in Europe there was a lot more violence in this movement then people even admit to now.

Also the largest and some of the most important Social Changes have all came about through revolution, the French, Parliamentarian, America were not peaceful. Civil war in America was yet again another example. If peaceful protest worked, people would have never been pushed to do such things as the Parliamentarian Revolts.

It is simple to see that the majority of Social changes, have came about through violence because the Government does not have to listen any other way. I really wish it wasn’t true, I wish we could live in a nice happy world where the majority has their say but it is clear that we do not. It is clear that the greatest and most important acts of Social-Revolution are through violence but the jaded teaching of history is at present helping to hide that from all of us.

Odium,

Peacefull resistance is the only way of actually winning. The only other option is out doing the cruelty unto your oppressors that they are doing to you.

In other words.

An eye for an eye, would leave the world blind. Just to stay topical,

Violence, begets violence. Therefore it is envetible that only those in "power" can stop violence. As it should be, for compassion and forgivness are traits of the mighty and strong. The weak and frightened, can never show those emotions, they only react with fear - which is why they are dangerous.

Passer By, when?

Sitting back and taking a beating, does nothing when the Government are the ones giving the beating. That simple.

No, thats cowardice.

Sitting back and taking a stand, or taking the beating for others is very honourable.

If war, or battles or fighting solved anything it would have been solved long before you or I would have been here. Grow up. AMerica wasn't being beaten, or attacked. It was acting exactly like everything that the free world was fighting against. Taking what you wanted becuase of might, and ignoring the rules of civilization.

Armed conflict has only, will ever only, bring more armed conflict.

Passer By you thinking is very flawed.

It is clear throughout History was has solved issues and also made some issues worse. However, if Peaceful-Protest worked, then there would have been no need for Violent-Action and Self-Defence in the 1960's.

It's that simple. Your own point, which you make against war destroys your own arguement and is mute.

[edit on 6/7/2005 by Odium]

It lucky they werent in Europe or they would have been shot.

You don't seem to understand, because people couldn't make the sacrfice needed, or maybe because they never thought of their real weapon, dosn't make the tatic flawed.

There is a saying that we didn't beat the Nazi's because we were good and noble, or because God was on our side. We beat the Nazi's because we out Nazi'ed the Nazi's. It is the paradox of war, and why I am right and you are mislead.

Stop paying taxes, and you have beaten every politician. Yes, the first will be thrown in jail and maybe later they will be beaten, but if enough people don't pay their taxes, then the government has no way of doing anything.

Maybe, if one's own government turns on the population, and starts to shoot at will - a case very much different than the one we are disscussing - then maybe violence to protect one's home.

But going to another land, a land that was not a threat, under lies and deveptions - there is no excuse for that. IMO.

Passer By, the problem is the Governments have turned on their people time and time again and if the people do not fight back then we are but sheep to the slaughter. If peaceful protest worked, there would have never been a need to go to the extreme because very few people wish to have to take up arms against their Government or another Government, the vast majority of people do not wish to have blood on their hands but the problem is when the Government does not listen to "Peaceful" protests the next step is violence.

Which is when they have to listen. They have no choice.

I respectfully disagree.

Here in Toronto, many feel that the city of Toronto pays far too much to the Provence for what we get back. There are arguements to both sides, but the interesting thing is someone pointed out that the Provencial parliment, in these times of living up to the edge, would last about half a week without the revenue from toronto's taxes and transfer payments. This was all we needed, and whatever it was that was demanded got met to a high degree.

How about at tax time, just don't pay your income tax. If half the americans did that, the powers that be would be forced to deal with you. The worst thing they can do is lock you up - there is no death penelty for it that I know of. Ofcourse, it would also bring your country to it's very financial knees, which is not a good thing to do - but depending on how strongly you feel about it, and if the alternive is killing someone who is, essentially just doing "his job".

People in North America and other democratic nations in the world are exceptionally fortunate to be able to not have to use force to get our leaders to listen to us, without having to resort to absolute governmental overthrow.

I just wish we would start to being more selective in how we excersise our rights. Voting doesn't work anymore, so we need to find another way.

Great...When the governments of the world "supposedly" don't want to listen to you, go out and destroy some other poor soul's business, house, or other public or private property..... is that what you are saying Odium? Because that's what many of these people were doing...

BTW, what exactly were these people protesting against?.... i don't even think they know. Are they in favor of poverty? Do they want the African nations to pay off their debts? Do they want the price of oil to keep going up?

It seems to be the vogue these days, once more, for some people to just resort to violence for the heck of it, and not because they really want to make a point.

You do not really need violence, or to destroy someone else's property or even public property to try to make your point. At the end the taxpayers are the ones that pay what the rioters decide to break and destroy.....


[edit on 6-7-2005 by Muaddib]

Civil disorder needs to be quelled at a certain degree because crime takes over (i.e. The LA Riots). However, the references to Nazi's, Black Panthers and the other extremist groups are unnecessary and cliche. The point is that a group of the major world powers is meeting in a part of a country where there is centuries of sentiment of foreign powers controling. Following the Welch revival of the early 20th century, there has been a huge surge is reclaiming the former cultures that disappeared under the veil of Great Britian. That is the main underlying issue, and believe me being a man who is totally against world government and national soveriegnty, this is me holding back a lot of emotion.

People are being sent to die in a country many would not have heard of if not for CNN, BBC, or Sky News. Some of these countries approve and others don't however they are meeting together and that is what gives these people a reason to protest. In the words of a great local Justice i knew: "Boy, if you lay down with dogs, you are going to get fleas". That is what happening. The citizens of Scotland have a right to protest if they wish, but they have to accept whatever comes with their protesting, whether it be retaliation to provoke dispersion, or arrest.

im with you odium, when is enough enough?! passifism is an awsome beautiful concept but the hard reality at the moment is violence is more effective. history has shown that. but thats all history. this is now.

i dont have the answer. im not sure theres much hope in a violent revolution anyways, but i do know this: history and all its statistics have yet to record 2005. right now is a very important time, because its now. you wont be afforded any bloopers or rolling credits. the choices made today ARE the future. all our textbooks and studies will never prepare us for today, because today is a first.

if i decided violent revolution was the answer, i could go find an undesirable lawyer, banker or politician and smash their head in. but what would that do? i might get myself on the news, even get some people to listen to my cause. but wait; 2005 is plenty used to violence. id end up just another guy in an orange jumpsuit.

violence may have worked in the past, but only when it was paired with good organization. say, what if we concentrated on organizing ourselves and left the violence at home for a bit?

i say grassroots organization is more key to social revolution than violence.

There are other means to change rather than violence. Violence is what isolates your group and leads to labels of terrorist and others. Propoganda and revealing the other side for what they truly are like press releases can bring about change (i.e. Watergate). IF it truly is the will of the people then it will succeed. The point is to keep the people behind you and to not have support faulter.


"And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."
-Mark 3:24-5

Originally posted by Passer By
People in North America and other democratic nations in the world are exceptionally fortunate to be able to not have to use force to get our leaders to listen to us, without having to resort to absolute governmental overthrow.

No they don't though. That's the problem. As I stated before, every May the 1st hundreds of thousands of people have came out for the last 15 years to protest poverty in Africa, the Proxy Wars of our Government, our Governments not doing enough about AIDs, the list goes on. When have they listened? There were 1 million people on the streets of London to say "No" to Iraq and the Government did not listen. They did not even bothere to hold a referendum on such an issue which clearly the Nation was divided upon.

As for your "tax" idea. Wouldn't work. The majority of tax over here is taken from you the moment you get paid and you do not pay it at the end of the year. The only sort of "tax" which doesn't is by the "council" so yet again it would not work as the larger National Government would get what they want and the council can remove the money from your bank as well.

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
[snip]
Black Panthers and the other extremist groups
[snip]

As I pointed out before, the Black Panthers were not a violent group. They promoted self-defence and to only attack when you are attacked.

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, what exactly were these people protesting against?.... i don't even think they know. Are they in favor of poverty? Do they want the African nations to pay off their debts? Do they want the price of oil to keep going up?

Actually last time I spoke to those organizing the protest it was about getting "Fair wages" on the agenda. So that large national companies such as Nike, can't use Africa or anywhere in the World as Cheap-labour, if they wish to do business in the West. Rather a good idea actually. It'll also help Africa a hell of a lot.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Great...When the governments of the world "supposedly" don't want to listen to you, go out and destroy some other poor soul's business, house, or other public or private property..... is that what you are saying Odium? Because that's what many of these people were doing...

I'm glad it is always their fault and never the Governments.

Firstly the British Government do not listen to us, they never have and/or will. They do not care anymore and it is clear by their actions on several issues.

Secondly, I have seen the Police first hand start a riot and the media blame it on the protestors. In 2002 back when I would have agreed with you about the use of Non-Violence, I went on one of the May the 1st Protests against Poverty and Globilization. Now in Britain, we can go down any road we see fit and protest. The Police thought otherwise. We went down a road they did not want us on and their reaction instead of blocking the road was to attack these people, most of them teenagers like myself with smoke grenades and then attack them with "baton" charges. I still have scars on my back from that day and the Media? They told the world we started it and attacked the Police. I know for a fact we didn't, because I was one of the people at the front of the Protest. Nobody threw a thing at them.

Thirdly have you ever been to a protest in the U.K?

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
There are other means to change rather than violence. Violence is what isolates your group and leads to labels of terrorist and others. Propoganda and revealing the other side for what they truly are like press releases can bring about change (i.e. Watergate). IF it truly is the will of the people then it will succeed. The point is to keep the people behind you and to not have support faulter.

Problem is Conrad, at the moment nobody cares to listen. Nobody in the media seems to care what is happening anymore. So there is a point when it will turn to violence because it is the next and final step. Nor am I promoting massive violent uprising against the Public, I am saying that once people get pushed they will fight back and it is a much larger statement. If thousands of people refuse to move and once the Police attack them for not moving (which is illegal) they have the right to fight back and defend themselves and they should do.

My cousin was at the WTO protests many years ago, yet oh wait, they were arrested on possession on what they said were art supplies for their peaceful protest signs. However, these "art supplies" were very similar to bomb making materials. Also, with the 4 bomb blasts these people better watch out now. Any wrong move can be construded as terrorism.

These type of violent actions on the part of protestors only, and I stress ONLY benifit the governent / establishment as they give protest groups a bad name, especially amongst more moderate people. It also gives the government an excuse to apply more stringent censorship and implement wider reaching anti-democratic laws. The above also holds true concerning terrorisim - terrorism = fear and fear is the governments best friend as a scared population is an easy population to control.

The only ones to gain from violence are the Military / industrial regime currently controlling the world. While this regime retains power we will never know peace or utopia.

And my point?

The violent actions were not performed by protestors, they were orchestrated by government agitators to discredit the real protestors and thus bring about the cancelation of the demonstration.

-KiwiDave

police seem to be starting more and more riots, worldwide.
RIGHT after 911, there was an international police convention in toronto.
i thought that was weird.

i have had police, on two occasions, tell me that i couldn't be on a particular road. they were in violation of the law, but i decided not to try and arrest them.
the system is broken. people who notice protest(in increasing futility).
what goes around, comes around.

the G8 don't want to save anyone. they merely want equal oppression for everyone.

successful protest lies in innovating systems that obsolesce the old order systems. simple, eh?