Best wishes from over this side of the Tasman.

….before skipping to the answers page at slackbastard
http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=475

Always important to remind ourselves that sometimes we give WAY too much credit to the state and their “intelligence” services

Any group engaging in violent protests at the APEC summit will be locked up, NSW Police Minister David Campbell says.

Several people were arrested and 10 police officers treated for injuries following violent clashes in Melbourne during the G20 summit last November.

Mr Campbell said all violent protests would be met with tough new laws enacted specifically for the summit, at which at least leaders from 21 countries will come together in Sydney.

“I am angered and appalled, but not surprised, by reports that radical protesters are planning violent protests during the APEC meeting,” he said in a statement.

“And I call on those planning peaceful protests to distance themselves from radical groups, which claim they’ll carry out violence.”

Mr Campbell said the “so-called anarchist group Mutiny” was linked to the violent incidents at the G20 summit and warned it to stay away from APEC.

“If they don’t, police will be armed with tough new powers to lock them up,” he said.

Of the many temporary powers, police will have special provisions when using police animals, including horses and dogs.

Certain individuals predetermined by police to be a serious threat to security will be prevented from entering declared security zones under the proposed legislation.

And anyone found assaulting police or causing damage can be refused bail during the APEC summit.

The proposed legislation will apply from August 30 to September 12 only.

A letter attributed to Mutiny appears on the website A-Infos, which claims to be be “a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists'’.

The letter says Mutiny does not want a repeat of what happened at the G20 in Melbourne, but favours less-than-peaceful protests at APEC.

“Obviously it’s important to encourage large-scale defiance in which people can feel safe and brave whatever their level of involvement,'’ the Mutiny letter says.

“The cops are clearly trying to make anyone who might think about protesting feel scared, and we have to fight that.

“It seems downright irresponsible to promise or demand peace. Obedience will not make us safer.'’

But the letter does leave open the possibility of violent protests.

“If any groups were planning confrontational actions it would of course be essential that they worked with respect alongside others so that those who did not want to be involved wouldn’t be drawn in against their will, and so that other actions were not interfered with,'’ it says.

“This letter was not written because we’re planning so-called violent protest or know of some secret plans - we have no idea.'’

AAP

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/apec-lockdown-plan-for-shops/2007/06/05/1180809464460.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

What I’m saying is that there are myriad reasons for attending & protesting not just Bush or Howard but also that the Asian economy is “booming” and the consequences of this rapid economic growth. If you want a less abstract aspect: Australia’s imperialistic approach to the Western Pacific is also VERY relevant, although perhaps this too is quite abstract to most Australians.

Would also look at the WTO protests in Sydney, where the city was shut down on Thursday, despite the attempt to sequester the conference out at Homebush. The massive RTS/party was GREAT. Closed down the city, got people on the streets & communicated with a lot of “ordinary” people.
Maybe that sort of thing could be tried again.
(:p)

You see, whether you agree with this or not (a critical approach to the legitimacy of the state and law,) the distinction being made is a valid one: the ‘Independent’ people concerned bring a quite specific ideology to what they do and say, and, though they may not be the police, this ideology does assume the legitimacy of the police as armed bodies imposing the law.

So the question is: are you being deliberately obtuse, refusing to understand what is being said and why? Or does something about all of this cause you to lose control and not think or read, instead just typing anything with a not-exactly-demonstrated superiority?

In other words, your comment is irrelevant and actually idiotic, and if you are really going to operate at that level then you are indeed a troll, and I think not a very bright one.

But I was actually asking a serious question: are people being represented by lawyers who have been involved in making public statements condemning protesters? (I believe the Fitzroy Legal Service made remarks also, beyond these ones.)