Log in

View Full Version : will the police overreact? - the party poopers



peaccenicked
30th January 2002, 18:44
----------------
N.Y. police brace for economic summit protests

NEW YORK (AP) — With the World Economic Forum starting tomorrow just a few kilometres from the site of the former World Trade Center, anti-globalization protesters say they aren't planning any violence — instead relying on 4.5-metre-tall puppets and a kick-line of dancers to try to convey their message peacefully.

The carnival-like atmosphere the activists hope to create is meant to show that protesting can be fun — unlike the riots that have plagued recent mass demonstrations in places like Seattle, Genoa, Italy, and Quebec City.

"We're respectful of what New York has been through. We live here, too," says Eric Laursen, an activist with the umbrella protest group Another World is Possible. "We're trying to be very visual and colourful and emphasize events that aren't violent in any way."

Still, protest organizers admit they have little control over fringe groups or individuals who may engage in violence — and police aren't taking any chances.

New York's police department will be out in force, working 12-hour shifts — 4,000 of them around the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, where the business and political leaders will be meeting through Monday.

Authorities are anxious to avoid a repeat of last year's World Economic Forum, which was held in its normal location of Davos, Switzerland. There, protesters angry that authorities kept them from getting near the conference site smashed windows, burned cars and clashed with police.

In preparation for this year's forum, officers in riot gear rehearsed crowd control techniques at Shea Stadium. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly sent staff for consultations with authorities in Seattle, Quebec City and Genoa.

Police have granted permits to some protest groups, allowing them to demonstrate in designated areas. But otherwise, authorities have vowed to clamp down on any sort of illegal behaviour, saying they would enforce an 1845 state law barring groups of demonstrators from wearing masks.

The law appears aimed at radical anarchist protesters who often wear black masks or scarves during demonstrations. In past protests, it was primarily anarchists who smashed windows or sprayed graffiti — acts that other protesters condemned.

David Graeber, a Yale anthropology professor and member of the anarchist group Anti-Capitalist Convergence, says his group plans no violence — although many anarchists believe vandalism isn't violence if it doesn't hurt anyone.

It is likely, though, that they may engage in "civil disobedience" to disrupt the meetings, such as forming human blockades outside the hotel, Graeber said.

"We're not going to break anyone's heads," he said. "It's up to the police whether there's violence. If they attack us, they're the ones being violent."

That's a sentiment shared by protesters from many other groups. News of the heavy police presence — and the heightened security since the terrorist attacks — has made activists worried that police may be rough with them.

"For weeks, the police have been training in riot tactics," said activist Brooke Lehman. "We've been training in samba, puppetry and street theatre."

The biggest demonstrations are expected Saturday, when two major protest groups plan successive rallies on Park Avenue near the Waldorf.

Another World is Possible plans to show up with huge papier-mache and cardboard figures and symbols. One will be a 4.5-metre-tall sun that will be shielded by clouds emblazoned with the words ``globalization" and "militarization."

"We're not against a globalized economy," explains Brian Becker, spokesman for International Answer, the other group, which espouses socialist and anti-war views. "We're against the effect of corporate globalization that enriches a small number at the expense of many."

The protesters' complaints appear to be getting through to the World Economic Forum. Organizers have scheduled two seminars focusing on the anti-globalization movement.

But activists point out that none of the panelists represent groups considered part of the anti-global movement.

Also, they say that several key representatives of non-governmental organizations critical of the forum who were invited in previous years have not been invited back.

Charles McLean, the forum spokesman, said the forum included more than 100 non-governmental organizations this year. The anti-globalization agenda, he said, "is basically antibusiness."

"The reality inside our meetings is an amazing collaborative effort of major sectors of society to help create a better world," McLean said. "But they don't want to believe it."



revolutionary
30th January 2002, 18:55
The carnival idea sounds great. There is no point in having anti-globalization demostrations that are violence because all the focus in on the violence and damage and not no the message of the protesters. It gives the groups a bad name and then no-one is prepared to listen to them. I hope the police don't piss off the protesters coz that is what sometimes causes the violence. I hope it goes well, i wish i could be there.

Kez
30th January 2002, 19:05
the police are the enemy of the people, according to orwell, and in some cases, he's right

comrade kamo

PS, i may well have misquoted him

Hayduke
31st January 2002, 16:31
but the police is your best friend......right....only thing they do here is sitting to see someone on their bike in a no bike zone...

Kez
31st January 2002, 16:47
police are fuked. sometimes they are good, sometimes complete bastards

comrade kamo

peaccenicked
1st February 2002, 13:48
NYC Newspapers Smear Activists Ahead of WEF Protests

NEW YORK - January 28 - In a few days, the World Economic Forum will hold its annual meeting, an elite gathering of what the WEF calls the world's "top decision-makers"-- in other words, big business leaders and government officials. The event usually takes place in Davos, Switzerland, but will be in New York City this year (January 31- February 4), ostensibly as a gesture of solidarity after the September 11 attacks.
Many globalization critics identify the WEF as a nerve center for neoliberal economics, and past WEF meetings have been the focus of significant protest. This year's meeting promises to be no exception, and local media are serving up some of the same distortions that have greeted past globalization protests.

Mainstream New York City newspapers have tended to frame discussion of the demonstrations in terms of their status as a security problem. A search of the Lexis-Nexis database (12/1/01 - 1/28/02) found that most articles in the New York Daily News, New York Post, New York Times and Newsday mentioning the WEF have focused on police preparations for the protests. As a result, the political debate over the WEF has been obscured, as have concerns about police brutality and civil liberties.

Though the New York Times and Newsday didn't manage to overcome this skew toward security questions, it should be noted that both papers provided more substantive coverage that did the Post and the News. Commendably, Newsday steered clear of the vitriol that has characterized some of its competitors. One recent Newsday article, "Activists: We Come in Peace" (1/25/02), focused on the protest organizers' endorsement of non-violence and concerns about potential police brutality; another (1/27/02) attempted a serious overview of recent political controversies over globalization.

Contrast this approach to one particularly vicious editorial from the New York Daily News (1/13/02), which referred to anti-WEF activists as "legions of agitators," "crazies," "parasites" and "kooks." The paper threatened activists, saying "You have a right to free speech, but try to disrupt this town, and you'll get your anti-globalization butts kicked. Capish?"

The Daily News compared critics of the WEF to the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center. "New York will not be terrorized," declared the paper. "We already know what that's like. Chant your slogans. Carry your banners. Wear your gas masks. Just don't test our patience. Because we no longer have any."

It's hard to read such rhetoric as anything other than an attempt to manipulate New Yorkers' legitimate anger and grief over September 11 in order to whip up a backlash against dissent. Unfortunately, the Daily News wasn't the only New York paper to attack activists in these terms. Much WEF coverage has been dominated not by serious reporting, but by unsubstantiated commentaries that portray activists as violent thugs.

New York Times columnist Clyde Haberman (1/19/02) described globalization activists as people "less known for their deep thinking than for their willingness to trash cities," saying "some would say that New York needs this [protest] about as much as it needs another airplane attack."

In an account of an extremely friendly interview "over a light beer at Lanagan's" with former New York City deputy police chief John Timoney, the New York Post's Steve Dunleavy (1/18/02) asserted that planned protests are "a potentially scary scene, promised by little nasty twits." The column was titled "Econ Summit Brings Own Terror Threat."

"There are some very serious bad guys out there," Timoney told the Post, "and I am not talking about Osama bin Laden. We are talking about pretty sophisticated bad guys." Though Timoney seemed to be making the outlandish suggestion that globalization activists are as dangerous as international terrorists, Dunleavy relayed the claim uncritically, following up with a tough-guy endorsement of Timoney's prowess: "Timoney, like most cops, has been beaten and shot at by punks all his life."

The ease with which commentators equate activists with terrorists has its roots in the mainstream media's rewriting of the history of U.S. globalization protests. Recent articles about the WEF have referred to previous, overwhelmingly peaceful globalization protests in Seattle, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and Philadelphia as "window-smashing, flame-tossing spectacles" (Daily News, 1/24/02), "violent mayhem" (New York Post, 1/20/02), "radical protesters rampag[ing] through the streets... clashing with police" (Daily News, 1/18/02), "wild protest melees" (New York Times, 1/25/02), and, simply, "violent" (Newsday, 1/18/02).

It's true that violence has been a problem at globalization protests, but the majority of it has been initiated by police, not protesters. The November 1999 WTO protests in Seattle were characterized by unprovoked tear-gassing, beating and unlawful arrests of peaceful demonstrators (and even of bystanders), and a National Lawyers Guild investigation characterized the Seattle violence as a "police riot." The American Civil Liberties Union has expressed alarm over police abuses at globalization protests, and in more than one case filed suit against law enforcement authorities over the issue. Yet time and again, media have distorted events to suggest that police force was a necessary response to "violent" activists. (See Extra!, 1-2/00 and 7-8/00.)

When coverage is dominated by news and commentary that presents lawful political assembly as a terrorist threat-- a threat that the police "know what they have to do" to deal with (New York Post, 1/18/02)-- it has a chilling effect on dissent, raises tensions between police and the public, and risks creating a climate where law enforcement agencies feel able to exercise force against demonstrators with impunity.

peaccenicked
4th February 2002, 00:20
from NY indiemedia
Police Assault Anti-Capitalist March
The Anti-Capitalist Convergence "brisk stroll" around the East Village has resulted in police violence. There have been 72 arrests, according to the People's Law Collective. Two Indymedia reporters were arrested while reporting on the events.

At around 1:30, numerous small groups of 5-10 pedestrians clustered into a crowd of 80-100. The crowd marched through the street, playing samba music and chanting, "The world needs us in the streets, we won't back down, we won't retreat." After 10 minutes, hundreds of police in riot gear converged on the group, violently arresting many.