On the fate of the Climate Camp in the City

[lizardist]

Many, indeed most, of my readers attended the demonstrations at the G20 summit in London, taking part in the action known as "Climate Camp in the City." As is well known, this camp was broken up after roughly 12 hours of occupation. The police methods were brutal, with the single goal of removing the protesters from the streets of London.

Comments

Hey

[kajabba]

Hey, nice analysis in the first 2/3rds, thanks for the succinct clarification.

But for the last bit--actually I think its naive to call the Climate Camp people naive. They're seasoned campaigners and commited to anti-capitalism. They've mostly all run into the police at some point and know what they're dealing with.

Also, you can't go making up definitions of riot.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/riot
They were not being violent, so I don't think they can fit the definition. However much you want them to.

I quite liked the (unplanned) format of the g20 day because its was potentially 3-tiered giving everybody plenty of options:

Tier 1: STW war march and rally--nice and soft, suitable for toddlers.
Tier 2: Camp for climate change--passive resistance
Tier 3: Bank meltdown--potential riot

This isn't quite what happened of course; CCC became a warzone and the bank thing was basically a street party that got boxed in and bashed up.

Now regarding the CCC becoming a warzone--I believe that it is better for the movement that this happened due to police intervention
rather than due to the protestors throwing the first stone. The way to carry it forward will be to prosecute the belligerent police officers so that they can't do the same thing next time. The police always get bad press somewhere and I'm sure their behaviour cannot continue.

I think it would be a significant victory if passive-resistance occupations of spaces became more and more unbreakable. Video cameras are the key.

Now, this is not to say that more aggressive actions shouldn't also be undertaken--but I think its good to have the tiers distinct and unconfused.

Jonni.

Re: Hey

[lizardist]

This is the LEGAL definition of a riot. I didn't make it up. I know it's bullshit, but that's kind of the point I was making. Don't expect the law to make sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act

Re: Hey

[lizardist]

Hmph, riot act is out of date.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q053.htm

Re: Hey

[lizardist]

And that's American Law.

But that's the thing. Your definition is what people imagine when they think riot. It is NOT the legal definition of a riot, that the police have to satisfy. You CAN have a "peaceful" riot.

Re: Hey

[lizardist]

Anyway, what I thought naive was PRECISELY the protesters telling the police what the law was. The police tell US what the law is. The police use the law to hit us on the head. Democracy be DAMNED, the police ARE the law.

And like you said, while other have come up with great definitions of a riot, ones in which the unrestrained and brutal attacks perpetrated by the police upon PEACEFUL PROTESTERS would be classed as a riot (rather than the other way around), try as we might those definitions have no sway. The killing of a man outside the Bank of England is going to absorb all of the public outcry. Whether the police were right to charge in the first place? That is a non-issue.