taken from http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/02/140171_comment.php#140202

Reflections on anti-G20 actions and their aftermath by someone who maybe threw a rubbish bin and possibly shoved a cop or two, and who wishes to remain anonymous for reasons I hope are obvious

Ever since a bunch of us threw some things, plastic rubbish bins mainly, and broke the window of a police van, and had a bit of push’n’shove with the cops, everyone has gone crazyworld. All of these respectable anti-globalisation people said we were bad, as did a few socialist groups and of course the police and politicians. The media have printed images of us to help the cops track us down, police have raided our homes and seized our property and charged us with riot and affray and such, people have even spent time in remand with sometimes substantial delays in getting bail. We have been marginalised by most and condemned by many, even by Community Legal Service lawyers and others who presume to adjudicate the legitimacy of our actions.

I hadn’t really paid that much attention since the actual events – I was sick for a few weeks afterward – and now it is like I’ve woken up and the world has gone nuts. I read the Arterial Bloc statement before I turned up at the G20 thing. Those Arterial Bloc people were talking pretty radical before the G20 and during, and now people are being hunted down all the ‘defence’ stuff seems like people are terrified and yapping apologetic nonsense. Because people are mad at them. For throwing a bin!

Where is your sense of proportion? The G20 are mass murderers, and now we’re being hunted down. Hunted down! For throwing a bin!

I know Arterial Bloc doesn’t equal those who took action or those charged. And I wasn’t in Arterial Bloc and I haven’t been arrested and my photo is not on display on wanted posters decorating newspapers and media websites, so I guess so far I’ve got away with it. Unlike the thirty odd people charged by now, I suppose. This could change, but so far I’ve avoided their attentions. I don’t speak for anyone except myself, of course.

But really, people charged now have lawyers who seem to have already said all over the place that they condemn everything that Arterial Bloc types and other radicals said they were about. Lawyers who made these statements not just as general principles but specifically in relation to the anti-G20 events.

And if I get arrested, I really think the odds of doing time are pretty small, even if I did throw a bin.

The hysteria of our critics all over the spectrum was revolting but not all that surprising – but I guess it provided the soundtrack for the police taking repression a bit further than had previously been experienced by some of the kind of people at the protests. Some of whom were, not to put too fine a point on it, white and middle class and not notable amongst the participants at Palm Island or Redfern. (All but the ‘middle class’ bit is true of me too, of course.)

We – whoever ‘we’ is - need to resist this repression for so many reasons. So we can do similar things in the future being one. So it is accepted that antagonistic people acting together can have the social weight to prevent some exacting enforcement of law. Because we should be able to attack the G20, and what the hell the police too.

Because the G20 is a club of governments who are mass murderers many times over. Because these governments and the capitalist system they further are one face of the status quo, and the status quo, the state of affairs that is this world, doesn’t require some extra reason to justify disobedience, some new ‘crime’ to make legitimate an active contempt, a destructive criticism.

Because in the world these people defend and recreate all the time, every day has its holocaust. Because they seek to control us and when people don’t want to be controlled by them this is fine, to be encouraged. Because their efforts to control us should inspire our hatred.

If you want reasons why not: Because Australia has been at the cutting edge of creating new types of concentration camp. Because Australia helped to enforce the ‘sanctions’ on Iraq in the nineties which killed over a million people and now pretends the hatred of Iraqis for the military might of their saviours is shocking. Because Australia keeps throwing its weight around ‘the region’, Because ‘our rights at work’ are not something I want to be told is ‘worth voting for’.

Because everyday life in Australia for people who aren’t rich is getting worse not better and I expect this trend to continue. Because the police are the violent defenders of the local version of our collective global hell, the army policing our lives as occupied territory.

For all these reasons and many more, I reserve the right to not be polite, to not obey, to use what is but a tiny fragment of the force and violence used by those within the G20 every day.

And really, compared to the more powerful psychopaths condemning our barbarity, what have we done? I threw a rubbish bin, maybe. I shoved a cop, possibly. Someone damaged a police car, it seems. In most countries this would rightly be regarded as trivial. In any rational society it might be seen in its actual context: the never-ending horror show that is our world.

I’m not sure what is the appropriate response to this horror show, but it sure isn’t giving money to Make Poverty History, voting for the ALP or Greens, beaming positive energy into the G20, praying to the sky god, trying to ‘get our message across’ over the corporate media through ‘non-violent protest’, signing a petition or sending an angry e-mail to my local member. And more to the point, if anyone doesn’t want to or can’t obey anymore the horrible rules that are supposed to make up our lives, and make up the limits of what we do, and what the hell throws a rubbish bin or two, damages some cop property, damages some cop whose very existence is a provocation, I for one am not going to spend my time tut-tutting their naughtiness.

They are mass murderers, they maintain their positions with exploitation and oppression. We threw bins at their violent stooges.

How is a liberal campaign going to ‘get the charges dropped’?

by kernal.corn

The above argument for a liberal campaign is familiar, and often inescapable, but in this case I think it runs on particularly thin ice - that is, the possible ground gained by making the liberal compromises seem quite limited (infinitely small). To run a liberal campaign is not just to compromise but also to compromise for no gain, whatsoever…

1. What makes the ‘argument against what is happening…stronger’ is not the content of ‘theory of democracy’ stuff but that it seeks to gain the support of a section of capital with power. It is wrong to suggest that it speaks to a wider audience, to people, it speaks to an ideological position of a section of capital – and that is where it strength is drawn from. Unfortunately, for this particular case that the traditionally appealed to section (Camberwell and toorak lefties) are not going to be coming to the party - especially to a party with those that attacked police without provocation (which by and by is something A bloc and co should be congratulated upon).

2. They ‘wont be coming to the party’ because the basis of liberal defence for radicals of ‘we went overboard’ but are essentially good went out the window thanks to the distancing efforts of the Make Poverty History and StopG20 (organisers and authoritarian left) sillys.

 3. Thus it seems absolutely ridiculous to be running the ‘democratic protest’ and ‘police violence’ stuff. In this context a liberal campaign can only be read as the police should stand still and do nothing whilst we bash them - a worthy cause - but not one that the citizens of Camberwell and Toorak are going to rally behind. There is nothing that they can identify as their interest. Eg radical press stuff can be divorced from the content and run as freedom of press…

4. In terms of getting ‘public attention: the ridiculousness of such positions mean there will be little attention given to these arguments, and less to the situation of the defendants. (perhaps more effective in getting ‘attention’ would be shock value of the more radical public statements).

5. Liberal campaign flys in the face of the expressed politics prior to and immediately after the protest expressed by Arterial bloc and associates. And in doing so breaks apart any group collectivity that exists… The group becomes an agent of punishment - not only are there fines and court punishments but defendents have to pretend that they believe in bullshit and say it, not just in the court room but everywhere. Further, the small support the group has is only damaged by a liberal campaign. A liberal campaign pleads to those with power - wealthy liberal left - those that do support activities and the approach of A bloc are hardly from that class and can do nothing if asked to support A bloc in ways that seeks them to pretend that they are.

 6. The liberal campaign is not crucial to the defence - money can be raised and is being raised from the ‘activist community’ not those that are appealed to by a liberal campaign. A liberal campaign if anything will decrease the potential for raising money to pay costs as liberals will say no to the ruffians and others will say no to the lame arses. …the problem is that when faced with an unknown threat/punishment the recourse to the concessionist and liberal ‘theory of democracy’ stuff becomes harder to escape. The justifiable benefit of leniancy from the concessions to a liberal campaign constitute an infinitesimaslly small limit. That coupled with the infinitly increasable threat of aggressiveness as a result of a ‘radical campaign’ constitutes an insurmountable, although imaginary abyss. Further, the benefit of a radical campaign is only seen collectively and realitvely and as a result of intangible shifts in the power relations between groups – hence, remains, for all intents and purposes, eternally undefinable and therefore invisible. In these circumstances the inertia towards liberal concessionism seems insurmountable. Perhaps the first step in getting away from this pull would be to try and define the ‘radical campaign’ - a task made more difficult thanks to the spectrality of stopg20. This task would perhaps be much more worthwhile then creating boring press releases hated by those that read them and ignored (or ridiculed) by their intended audience, making badges about defending the right to protest… …the possiblities are much more interesting with the radical options as well - eg run the campaign as something like - in early 90s we could loot myer and get away without this crap , now in 2007 things have become so much worse that we can no longer get away with throwing rubbish at police therefore people need to reassert some power to correct this terrible state of affairs, so that ‘the community can enjoy the delights of looting’. Such a campaign would certainly alter the people being talked to… lastly in the context of a ‘your rights are worth voting for’ campaign a radical campaign could be more broadly useful in countering the stultifying management of people through unions and other institutions.

A 21 year old woman has been arrested for her alleged involvement in the G20 protests. 

This arrest is latest in a barrage of excessive police activity in response to people exercising their democratic right to protest. 

“The use of violence by members of the Police force at the November protests is well documented and currently being investigated by the Office of Police Integrity” said Victoria Stead, spokesperson for the Ongoing G20 Arrestees Solidarity Network.

Numerous reports of police brutality include overhead baton strikes against non-resisting protesters, aimed towards the head, face, back and neck, resulting in hospitalization as well as severe bruising and concussion. 

“Overhead baton blows like this carry a serious risk of injury and, according to police documentation, "should only be used when lethal force is justified".”

“We are also concerned that police are arresting people who have been associated with social and environmental justice movements.” 

“The Police have breached long standing conventions of our criminal justice system by publicly releasing photos of so called ‘persons of interest’, against whom no specific accusations had been made at the time of publication.”

“A healthy democracy relies on people’s right to stand up for what they believe in.  What we are seeing is politicized policing, designed to silence public opposition, that is excessive, indiscriminate, and illegitimate, therefore we’re calling on all charges to be dropped.” 

The arrestee will be supported outside the Police station today by tutu-clad members of the public who are concerned with the behavior of the Victorian Police. 

Some recent media on the G20, and the ‘inquiry’ into police tactics:

The herald sun strings a whole article out of an online comment form, in order to claim ‘Public back police actions.’

Peter Costello weighs in, and adds ‘broken glass’ to the mythical ‘urine-filled balloons.’

Andrew Bolt complains about the Fitzroy Legal Service. 

More seriously, Hugh de Krester, from the Federation of Community Legal Centres, manages to get a few words in about the abduction of Drasko Boljevic (as well as denouncing ‘protester violence’.)