Melbourne Activist Community Supports G20 Arrestee
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.
must we rely on such false notions as bourgeoise democracy. we are for something different. a more radical frame… from the sidelines…
Comment by woooo — February 5, 2007 @ 3:22 am
I agree with wooo……but from up here it becomes a bit hard to imagine what a radical non-liberal political response would be.
either way i am glad these solidarity efforts keeping on rumbling on and perhaps we can develop other ways of contest the clampdown.
Comment by Dave — February 5, 2007 @ 4:52 am
The release of photo’s of ‘persons of interest’ may or may not go against conventions (wouldn’t know, maybe some legal eagle can clarify), but gee whiz, going by the number of fools charged it sure works! Obviously had the desired affect, about 30 down, who knows how many more to go. Like the head honcho from “taskforce Salivate’ or whatever it’s called said: “were in it for the long haul” interseting to see what the final count will be - hopefully heaps more
Comment by sure works! — February 7, 2007 @ 9:28 am
i think that while it is important to attack the charges and etc from a more radical angle, it is also worth appealing to a much wider audience for support in order to get these charges dropped. if you can criticise what is going on in terms of the theory of democracy and etc, let alone in radical terms, the argument against what is happening is stronger i think
Comment by Administrator — February 7, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
How is a liberal campaign going to ‘get the charges dropped’?
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.
Comment by kernal.corn — February 8, 2007 @ 5:05 am
I think kernal.corn’s comment is spot-on. Can an administrator post it as an article on the main page? Been trying to come up with something to respond to some of the media releases i’ve seen as well, hopefully post it soon.
Comment by vikram — February 9, 2007 @ 10:37 am
I’m with kernal.corn and vikram - thanks kernal for writing more or less exactly what I’ve been thinking but couldn’t quite put into words. Your point (5) is especially important to me.
And yeah, I second putting that as a post on the site as well as the comments here.
Comment by Aotearoa Anarchist — February 10, 2007 @ 1:07 am
The Dutch Oven is Tutu Girl’s #1 Fan:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/police_commissioner_lets_tutu_girl_run_the_city/
Reminds me of that scene from Aliens…
Ripley: Hudson!
Hudson: …and they’re gonna come in here AND THEY’RE GONNA KILL US!
Ripley: HUDSON! This little girl survived longer than that with no weapons and no training.
[to Newt]
Ripley: Right?
[Newt apes a salute]
Hudson: So why don’t you put her in charge?
Comment by @ndy — February 12, 2007 @ 7:22 am
Oh yeah.
I think any defence campaign will need to pay attn to — in fact, be largely determined by — the desires of those actually facing charges.
Comment by @ndy — February 12, 2007 @ 7:58 am
Really, aside from anything else, does anyone really believe there is anyone so stupid as to imagine that what happened was “people exercising their democratic right to protest”? No one, not the trots, not the liberals, no one was protesting against the g20 because they represent the nation, as a unity. Sure, they might claim they do - but does anyone have to repeat this nonsense? Is this representation what grants the ‘right’ to protest? Isn’t protesting, by definition, something that goes against this semblance of unity? (And is there no recollection that these arrests started as a hunt for ‘foreign’ troublemakers?)
And fair enough about paying attention to the desire of those who’ve been arrested. Fears can produce ‘desires’ too. Paying attention surely doesn’t mean affirming the role that fear plays here in (further) atomising those people, and creating a fear of atomisation, individual ostracism and punishment. Solidarity campaigns can’t be about entrenching these fears, but giving courage.
Surely, rather than conduct an exercise in insisting that those who have been arrested are not only part of a “community of activists” (a fiction, as we all know given the responses of activist world), but a proper part of the nation, might there not be a defense of difference, opposition, dis-unity?
Democracy is the clampdown - and this press release participates in its logic.
Comment by s0metim3s — February 16, 2007 @ 7:41 am