- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Martin vs. Malcolm

Posted by: MDG on December 01, 1999 at 16:53:32:

In Reply to: And what if there is immediate violence? posted by Farinata on December 01, 1999 at 15:28:36:

: Unfortunately, this gives the police carte blanche to behave as badly as they like to the demonstrators in the knowledge that any violence which takes place will be blamed on the protestors; it's rather like the old defence against rape; "they were asking for it, going around like that".

Yes and no. If the police start the riot, there's a decent chance that this will be publicized and prosecuted. Even if that doesn't happen, why sink to the level of violent police?

: When it comes down to it, riot police are so heavily armed that they can start a fight with comparative impunity.

So why attack them first?

: On June the 18th 1999, the police were wandering around on an all-day power trip; they were trying to confine the protestors to a ridiculously small area (and you know how people behave when they feel hemmed in).

Fuck da police! What's wrong is wrong, despite a badge.

: Even this didn't manage to turn people nasty; in the end, they ran two people down with riot vans and prevented an ambulance getting to one of them (they said that the protestors "were a threat to the safety of the ambulance staff"; and delayed the ambulance getting to the woman they'd run over) for 25 minutes; she was crying and moaning; and that turned the crowd ugly; and as soon as the crowd turned ugly, the police decided it was time to wade in full strength and charge them with the cavalry.

Use the civil authorities to prosecute them. Again, the alternative is fighting the police and getting killed.

: Protestors very rarely indulge in violence for no cause; especially the hippy-green anti-road lot. However, even if you only react with violence to immediate violence, you will still get bad press for resisting at all.

I know, it sucks, but it's still the best way to go.

: In my qualified experience, the police were intent on premeditated violence yesterday; as they were on 18/6/99, as they were on 13/4/97 and as they were on 9/10/94; I speak as an eyewitness at all of the above dates.

Seems that way, though luckily they didn't break heads a la Chicago 1968.

: I believe that the police in question were ordered to create the conditions necessary for a riot to further the political ends of their political masters; and that it will happen again; it seems to be the standard tactic used to discredit a mass movement.

Did the police force the protesters to lie in the streets?

When confronted with state violence, you can either take the nonviolent approach, as did Martin Luther King, and let the world see exactly who the real oppressors and victims are, or you can fight them head on and lose, yet still be considered the aggressor, as Malcolm X often was. I'm not saying that armed resistance is never necessary, but nonviolence is the better path almost every time.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup