from the age…
Police put bite on G20 suspect
Leo Shanahan
March 20, 2007 - 2:00PM
Police will force a man accused of violent protest at last year’s G20 conference to undergo a photographic examination of his teeth in an attempt to identify him in file photos.
Daniel Jones, 20, will have his teeth photographed by police later today to confirm that he was the man with a characteristic gap in his front teeth who was hurling abuse at police during the protests in November last year.
Supported by a group of about 30 protesters, Jones faced Melbourne Magistrates Court today along with three other men - Timothy Davis-Frank, 22, Daniel Robbins 24 and Sunil Menon, 25 - after being arrested in dramatic morning raids in Sydney on March 14.
It was the first time the men had faced a Victorian court after being extradited from Sydney.
All have been charged with offences relating to violent protests in central Melbourne during last November’s G20 conference.
The men, all hailing from Sydney’s inner western suburbs, were charged with a range of offences including unlawful assembly, riot, conduct endangering persons and aggravated burglary.
Jones is accused of causing $9483 worth of damage to a police brawler van that was stationed on the corner of Flinders Lane and Exhibition Street.
A 17-year-old Sydney teenager was also charged and will face a children’s court.
A small group of protesters out the front of the court called for all charges to be dropped, and criticised the use of anti-terror police squads during arrests.
"We are here to defend our rights and are to protest the G20 and calling for all charges to be dropped," said Anita, a spokeswoman for the group.
When asked whether rioting protesters should be held accountable for their actions, Anita told theage.com.au: "We think a distinction should be made between violence and property damage."
Magistrate Sarah Dawes said the men were free to return to Sydney after having their bail extended and will reappear in Melbourne Magistrates Court on May 11
I think the extent that taskforce salivate is going to is commendable. Simply showing images of a face to the jury and asking them to decide if it is person charged is not really fair. This is extremely subjective. By obtaining images of Daniel ‘pearly whites’ Jones teeth, scientific measurement/analysis can be made comparing them to those on the images taken at the riot, sorry, protest. This is an objective manner of determining the similarity and is ultimately fairer to young ‘pearly whites’.
Comment by Pearly Whites — March 20, 2007 @ 6:53 am
defend our rights? i didnt even say that…
Comment by Administrator — March 20, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
Spokesperson is quoted as saying that “we think a distinction should be made between violence and property damage”. This is a bad thing to say to the media, reads as if the solidarity group condemns the actions of those of us who allegedly threw bins at cops, and so on. While this wouldnt have been their intention, you need to be very careful with what you say to the media. Maybe a better answer would have been “Protestors alleged actions are a symptom of how desperate the situation is coming to. If the current economic and political systems are not stopped, there soon wont be a world to fight over. We condemn the actions of the rich, not the reactions of the poor and oppressed”. Or something, but dont say anything that can be construed as condemning some protestors, cos that aint solidarity. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but wehen i read the quote i was thinking ‘what the fuck?’.
The solidarity network needs to decide if it will be a liberal ‘rights’ organistion, or if it is willing to defend the actions that we have been accused of- and there by make some more room for us to have a defence that relies on more then we accused being sorry for our actions. Create a discussion (perhaps) on whether or not it is morally justifiable to fight with police, because at the moment all we are hearing is that police are innocent creatures who have never hurt anyone, and it is morally wrong to throw something at them. Why is this? Many people in the community hate police. From immigrants who are constantly hassled by racist pigs, to the homeless, workers who have had pickets broken by police, and queers who can remeber what it feels like to be bashed by police (not to mention the continuing harrasment we face).
Tap in on this community ressentment, argue that police have been walking all over people for years, and that its about time people stood up to them, especially in the context of the G20’s policies. This will give us arrestees more room to make defences, and will be showing some real solidarity (in my opinion, at least). Even if this provides nothing useful for our courtcases, it may at least help get people thinking about the political climate and more radical responses to it, rather then our so called ‘right’ to protest (protest- as in ask police for permission to listen to boring speeches and march down a route that police have allowed us to, and at the end of the day go home having achieved nothing).
just some thoughts.
an arrestee.
Comment by an arrestee — March 23, 2007 @ 4:15 am
Hello all,
I just thought people might be interested in some of the statements that were made to those of us standing outside court as we were hanging out and offering solidarity. As you can imagine, most people going past are either cops, lawyers or journos and this was a bit depressing. But of course, there are heaps of people filing past in ill-fitting borrowed suits, scarred faces, looking nervous - the defendants. For example, this comment was made to us by a woman walking into court:
“whoever bashes cops gets my vote”
it was pretty interesting to think about our relationship to “the public” in this context. Certainly, this particular cross-section of “the public” is not the usual conservative construct of the public that we’re always served up as the reason to keep ourselves nice in public discourse. It was more like the public that I see when I wait endlessly for overcrowded trains in what used to be Zone 3 - people who have had plenty of unpleasant interactions with cops because of their use of recreational substances, or because of other petty offences - or even those who have never committed any crime but are constantly being pulled over by cops as they walk around town on a Friday night. These people are also the public, let us not forget. And they are the public that no-one else gives a shit about - the public that lives in safe labor seats and ghettoes of declining public services and shitty public transport in the outer suburbs.
I just watched “Land of the Dead”, the latest of the Romero zombie films, again. I recommend it to all. I think he says it much better than I can.
Comment by Liz Thompson — March 26, 2007 @ 3:20 am
just in reply to the comment above
i was the spokesperson here and am really sorry that my comments were reported in the way they were. both of these comments here are either things i didnt say or taken out of sentences and contexts, and obviously this has made me think about how i frame sentences to media and etc. i fully agree with everything you have written, and this has been mine and many other people’s sentiments. the interview i gave to the age person actually followed pretty much the line that you suggest in your comments. however, the difficulty is, and as always with the mainstream media, actually getting that reported or put out, and at the moment im having trouble in working out how we actually can have a public presence that puts out a line like that without having to rely on journalists actually reporting what you say… through what means are we able to do this?
Comment by Administrator — March 27, 2007 @ 3:46 am
i think the point liz makes about “the public” here is really important. i think it relates to liz’s other good point about fear, & not letting fear turn into a sense that “we” did do something wrong, or something that “the public” will only understand if we explain it certain ways. i think we need to be bolder: there are plenty of people who understand why someone might throw a bin at a cop.
the thing is, i don’t think magistrates are among those people - which is why i think it’s important to keep the legal campaign (how people chose to fight their charges in court) & the political campaign (what other people say & do to support them) separate.
as for the media, when we protest we know that they aren’t going to give us fair coverage & we chose our strategy accordingly. it seems that we’ve been trying to deal with the media in a more straightfoward way since the arrests. & that’s not working, so, like admin said, we have to work out what else to do…
Comment by princess mob — March 28, 2007 @ 12:06 am
If people are going to talk to the media and they feel that their comments are misquoted, have they actually attempted to have this corrected? If you think it is worth talking to them, maybe it is worth complaining or writing a letter of correction. If nothing else, if (for example) that creepy Marcus guy from StopG20 had been able to not only have people claim that he had been repeatedly and identifically misrepresented, but to point to concrete efforts to correct such alleged misrepresentation, maybe I would only be saying that I thought his media strategy was misguided and not that I think he is a creep.
I’m not suggesting that anyone here is like that guy, just that it might be worth making the point very clearly that such misrepresentation will be taken seriously if the media are to be engaged with. People like Marcus have poisoned the ‘misrepresentation’ well for some time I think.
Comment by benjamin rosenzweig — March 28, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
Hey all,
Princess Mob makes a good point about magistrates and I have had some very good chats with people about this since my open letter - I think there are ways that the broader “we” can open up interesting spaces to talk about why people might throw bins at cops without suggesting that that has anything to do with those individuals who might be going to court. But anyway - more on this when we see the evidence, I guess…
As for the media - I’m not sure you can necessarily pull the mispresentation line all the time as an excuse…
I think the broader point is right: we can’t make the media be our friends, and we’re always going to fuck ourselves over if we try to slip around them. I had the same experience when I was interviewed by the Age about the shitty treatment of international students and really badly misquoted. I sent a letter to the editor and the journo asking for a correction - didn’t get it, but its important that its done so that those who have trusted you to do boring representational stuff (which is what media work inevitably is), can know that you did your best. But again - its a problem with representational stuff. And I think we should actually talk about not doing it - NOT representing ourselves to the media with spokespeople. If they want to come along to stuff, all well and good. But I think playing their game in terms of providing spokespeople for soundbites is providing ever-diminishing returns…
The corporate media have so much of their own time, energy and sales invested into the demonisation campaign that we are never going to get anything across effectively to them at this point - this may change later, but I’m not sure. They are doing to the G20 arrestees what they did to Jack Thomas and the Barwon 13 in terms of generating so much negative publicity that the prosecution won’t even have to come up with much in the way of evidence (apart from reams of irrelevant stuff like photos of people’s mouths!) to put the pressure on for a prosecution. I think that we should put more and more energy into talking to others in the world (the ever-elusive public) more directly, through public meetings and fun events like maybe a screening of “Land of the Dead” and some beer and talking (I do love that film….) and the fundraisers.
Media are stoopid. Let’s not play with them anymore.
Comment by liz thompson — March 29, 2007 @ 4:16 am
liz i completely agree. in all the discussion that has happened about media lines and etc, the problem is always that in the way that the corporate media works, whatever you say is always just there to be constructed into someone else’s argument. but the problem is then about how do we create a public discourse and dialogue around what has and is happening and what we think/want/demand in the absence of any alternative means of communicating directly with a broad, diverse audience? and so i think that public forums and discussions and fundraisers and etc are really great ideas of how to get around this, though i also think that maybe we need to give some serious consideration to how to communicate with an even wider ‘public’ than would be attracted to or engaged in those events/meetings/etc. or maybe people think that this is not necessary? i am not sure.
-anita
Comment by Administrator — March 29, 2007 @ 6:10 am
One way to get around being put on the spot by media at demos is to have a written statement by the group putting on the event. When media ask for a comment, give them the written statement, and refuse to answer any questions. By doing this you can still get some sort of statement in the media, something that has been checked over to ensure there is nothing that can be misconstrued in it, and something the entire group agrees with. There also isnt the problem of trying to make up a comment on the spot, and saying something unintentional, or poorly worded. While the media can work it in to fit their line on the protest, there is less of a chance for them to pull out shitty, unintended quotes. Unless of course they just make shit up.
Protests such as the solidarity one are aimed at trying to gain public support (i imagine) as well as trying to let us arrestees know that we aren’t alone, that there are people who dont want to see us rot in a cell. So in this sense media is important, even if they completley misconstrue what happens, just so that all the people who didnt see it happen, can at least find out that it did happen. Alternate forms of media/info-sharing are too often cliquey, aimed at other ‘activists’, or uni students. While the mass media is obviously fucked, it does reach an audience that is more then just the usual suspects. So i think it is important to use them for these specific actions (solidarity actions that is, not demos like the g20 protest).
Comment by an arrestee — March 31, 2007 @ 3:39 am