Police Tactics

Understanding police claims of protestor violence

This week's Bulletin, though lengthy, is an excellent resource for understanding recent mass protests, especially those at the Republican and Democratic conventions.  More protests are being planned for the coming months because, as Rev. Sharon Delgado says, "the overarching issue [is] the cooptation of the democratic process by Transnational Corporations, who have access to both the Democratic and Republican parties that regular people do not have.....Public protest is one valuable form of participation in democracy. [S]uch organized resistance is exactly what Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi advocated and participated in....What is needed is already happening: a global resistance movement of people concerned about different issues is coming together [for] building a common future for humanity based upon justice, peace and the integrity of creation....The question is, where will the churches be in this struggle."

Summary

A disturbing trend is developing regarding police preemptive response to mass protest. In numerous situations since WTO protests in Seattle in late 1999, police have issued misinformation claiming unsubstantiated evidence of violent plans by protestors gathering for mass actions. The false information is then used as a pretext for unwarranted police actions. The misinformation concerning protestor plans have ranged from chemical weapons to bomb-making. None of the numerous claims of violent plans have been substantiated.  Nonetheless, many media outlets appear to have been predisposed to repeat information provided by police without fact-checking or seeking responses from the organizations accused. The damage to free speech and the mass protest movement has been extensive.

Introduction

Mass protest of government policies on this continent is at least as old as the property destruction that characterized the Boston Tea Party, involving hundreds of activists in 1773. Since the anti-war protest of the 1960's and anti-nuclear protests of the 1970's, few instances of mass protest have garnered national media attention. That situation changed radically on November 30, 1999 when activists from around the globe shut down Seattle meetings of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This story garnered widespread international attention; fueled further by the violent police response to peaceful protestors, the declaration of a no-protest zone and millions of dollars worth of property destruction to multinational corporate buildings in the city center.

The Seattle Police Department reputation was damaged severely by officers' lack of control and brutal response in the streets. In the protest's wake, Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper quickly resigned. Police departments charged with preventing similar disruptions in their cities since the Seattle actions have scrambled to find ways to prevent mass protest.  A disturbing pattern of response has appeared over the last six months. It is loosely characterized by three steps.

First, police departments, often in conjunction with city government, begin a multi-faceted media campaign designed to make protest organizers appear to be involved in preparations for violence. Police departments have assembled and distributed collections of flyers claiming violence, released videos of protest from other cities, held meetings with individual media organizations and created a mythic notion of an organization dedicated to violence and central to the protest usually identified as "anarchists" or "Eugene Anarchists" [which refers to anarchists from Eugene, Oregon].

Second, once the public is predisposed to expect violence from activists, the second step in the process involves a specific claim of evidence suggesting an imminent act of violence. These claims will later be retracted, corrected or will simply remain unsubstantiated. They have included claims of stolen bomb-making materials, a bus load of poisonous animals, a factory to produce pepper spray, acid filled balloons, a cyanide poisoning or the simple fact that known terrorists have evaded police surveillance and now may be prepared to act without restraint.

The third step in this tactic follows the second closely or simultaneously. It involves a police action publicly justified in the climate of imminent terrorism. It has the effect however, of a prior restraint on free speech and intimidation of those who would speak their mind against their government. Examples have included seizing training and puppet making facilities; seizing training, art and medical supplies; and seizing hard drives and political literature. Potential protestors have been arrested, beaten and had bail set at ridiculously high amounts to hold them past the event around which the protest was scheduled.

Recent Examples

1. Philadelphia Republican National Convention - August 2000
The Philadelphia Police Department raided a warehouse where activists were engaged in creating puppets to protest at the Republican National Convention (RNC). Seventy activists were arrested, materials were seized and the warehouse was shut down. The police claimed prior to the raid that they believed that activists were storing C4 explosives. Also, activists were allegedly preparing weapons in the form of acid-filled balloons presumably to throw at the police. The warehouse was claimed to be a staging ground for both producing weapons and preparing a riot. Police also claim to have arrested people associated with a bus containing small animals, some of which were poisonous. Police claim that these animals were to be used to attack delegates of the RNC.

No C4 explosive was found. Nor were any other weapons or acid found. The bus driver transporting the animals claims to be a pet shop owner.

At the time of this report's release many of those activists remain jailed. Bail has been set at amounts that preclude easy release generally ranging around $15,000. One activist was held on misdemeanor charges and $1,000,000 bail subsequently reduced to $100,000. This has effectively prevented activists from speaking out against the RNC and the subsequent Democratic National Convention (DNC) about to begin in Los Angeles.

2. Washington, DC IMF/World Bank Meetings - April 2000
The day before mass protest of World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings in Washington, DC police raided a training and art supply warehouse popularly referred to as a "convergence" space. Police reports claimed that they found materials for making Molotov cocktails, a laboratory for mass production of pepper spray and bomb-making materials. This, in part, justified arrests that ran to near 1200 people for the week.

In a later retraction, police admitted that the Molotov cocktail supplies were plastic containers and rags that smelled of solvents. The pepper spray factory was nothing more than a kitchen and bomb-making materials were limited to simple plastic water pipe. All of these materials are consistent with activities related to the convergence and art projects.

As a result of police action the infrastructure and political messages in the form of signs and puppets were taken by police and did not appear on the streets or in media coverage. Undoubtedly numerous people stayed home for fear of associating with violent terrorists utilizing bomb-making factories.

3. Minneapolis International Society of Animal Geneticists - July 2000
Several days before the protest was to begin, police claimed that large quantities of ammonium
nitrate had been stolen from a nearby storage area and that unidentified protestors were suspected of involvement. On the day of the major march, police claimed that a cyanide bomb had been detonated in a McDonald's restaurant. The FBI called this an act of terrorism and the local anti-protest law enforcement action was placed under federal control. The next day the federal Drug Enforcement Agency, including hooded officers raided a house where some protest organizing had taken place. Residents were beaten, arrested and taken to a hospital. Hard drives and political literature were seized along with less than an ounce of marijuana and a small amount of psychedelics.

Police at the raid claimed that an undercover agent had warned that residents at the house wore
hunting knives to attack police in the event of an arrest.

Charges on all but one resident have since been dropped. Police announced that they now have
no reason to believe that activists were involved in the ammonium nitrate theft. A health department inspector said that there was no cyanide threat, the poison being more concentrated in apple seeds than in the smoke bomb that fogged the McDonald's. Needless to say, the retractions did not receive the level of press coverage of the original actions. Discussion of the ethics of animal genetics received little discussion.

4. Tacoma, Washington Kaiser Aluminum Lock-out of Steelworkers - March 2000
In the wake of the successful alliance built between labor and environmentalists in Seattle, action was planned in Tacoma to support the locked-out United Steel Workers of America. The Direct Action Network, Steelworkers and more than a dozen other groups allied to call for a weekend of actions. As that weekend approached, police warned the press and community leaders of the violence that was likely. They claimed that "anarchists from Eugene were missing" and actions at the Kaiser plant could start a chain reaction and "blow up the whole port of Tacoma."

In this case, initial scare tactics were sufficient. Steelworker leadership backed out of the alliance one week before the actions and the protest fell apart. No mass labor-environment action coalition has happened since.

5. Eugene, OR Eugene Active Existence - June 2000
A six week anarchist conference was the subject of numerous police press releases concerning alleged threats of violence and the precautions the Eugene Police Department employed to avert trouble. Police distributed to the media a portfolio of dozens of flyers spanning five years that they claimed revealed protestors' violent threats. They created a video simulation of a dummy police officer burned by a police-constructed firebomb that anarchists might use.

Two days before the final planned march, police arrested two young men for allegedly burning a truck. They are currently being held on $900,000 bail and face 15 to 86 years in prison if convicted. [note: Free and Critter have since been convicted.]

Conclusions

Mass media and public perceptions are being systematically manipulated by police departments and other government agencies faced with upcoming mass protests in their cities. These manipulations are designed to squelch protest and thereby the message of dissent. A common thread in the current series of nation-wide protests is a sense that control of government is no longer in the hands of common people. Governments are effectively squashing the challenge inherent in this message. Editorial pages and conversations on the street are full of critiques that protestors are not clear about what they stand for and seem more interested in violence than meaningful change. This is as clear a sign as any that protestor voices have been effectively silenced and police positioning of protestors is carrying the day.

In addition, activists are scared. Anyone who has been involved in the mass protest movement through a major event of the last six months has friends who have been brutalized at the hands of the system. Of the nearly 2500 protest arrests that have happened since November 30, 1999, more than three-quarters have had all charges dropped and only a small percentage of arrests have resulted in convictions.

These facts notwithstanding, there is little national debate on police strong-arm tactics. The reason seems clear. Despite the injustice activists face for speaking their beliefs, the public allows these police tactics because they have been made to fear activists. Unfortunately, the evidence for their fear is the result of misinformation by these same police agencies.

The costs to police agencies since Seattle are minimal. No chief has been pressured to resign, no officer has been charged with misbehavior and requests for special appropriations in the millions of dollars for gear and overtime have been granted.  In Los Angeles we should expect these successful tactics to be repeated. Step one has been completely implemented. The public knows of thousands of National Guard soldiers standing ready, units to diffuse weapons of mass destruction are on stand-by, the public has been asked to phone police whenever they see someone wearing the political symbol associated with anarchism: the circle A. The first protestor arrests resulted in felony charges filed and $20,000 bail for a failed banner hang. Sometime around August 12th or 13th we should expect some stunning news of impending protestor violence. Sometime within a day or so thereafter we should expect a large scale pre-emptive raid or arrest. By the end of the DNC it will be clear that the stunning news claiming protestor violence earlier in the week will remain unsubstantiated.

When the full range of political dialogue is no longer being tolerated by the government, and the
general public remain silent about this repression it will not simply disappear. With debate stifled, energy for change will instead transform and move underground. Evidence of a growing movement of covert acts of sabotage indicate that the movement  underground is picking up steam.

By Tim Ream , 8/10/00
http://la.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=543

TOP

You are Under Arrest

by Ronald Kuby and William Kunstler

You are standing on Avenue A shouting "No Housing, No Peace." Suddenly, some huge ex-football player from Suffolk County jumps you from behind and slams your face into the concrete. He is wearing a blue outfit, a gun, and is putting handcuffs on you. What has happened? You are under arrest!

You are under arrest when the police, by their words (Halt or I'll shoot!) or their conduct (grabbing your arms and hurling you into a paddy wagon) make it clear that you are not free to leave. If you have any doubt as to whether you are under arrest, ask! (Assuming your mouth is not full of blood and teeth.)

The police do not have to pronounce any magic words for you to be under arrest. And get this--contrary to the teaching of a generation of TV--the police do not have to "read you your rights." Most people (and many criminals) still believe that a police failure to recite the Miranda warnings means the case has to be thrown out. Not true. There is nothing sadder than the look on the face of an otherwise hardened killer when you break this news to him. (Well, almost nothing sadder.)

A brief digression: (Like many myths, the "he did not read me my rights so I go free" is one that can trace its origins to something in objective reality. Back in 1966, the Supreme Court held that the failure of the police to tell a suspect that he had the right to remain silent, and to a free lawyer before being questioned, meant that nothing the suspect said could be used against him. So the Court put a crimp in the time-honoed police practice of beating a confession out of a suspect. Many suspects had to be released because the only evidence against them was a confession extracted through torture. Eventually, many police learned how to get evidence without hitting people (although they still beat suspects just for fun). This other evidence--eyewitness statements that you pulled the trigger, your blood-stained clothing, the recently fired gun, etc.--has nothing to do with you making a statement and nothing to do with whether you were read your rights.)

Ok. So you are in the squad car, going to the police station. As a general rule, the best policy is for you to keep your mouth shut. Do try to avoid saying dumb things like "I didn't mean to do it; everyone else was doing it" and "I just meant to rob the guy, I didn't know that Joe would shoot him." Do not try to talk yourself out of the arrest. The only thing that you can influence at this point is whether you go "through the system".

If you are charged with an E felony or lower (including misdemeanors) the police get to decide whether they will issue you a Summons / Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) (click here to see image) and release you, or whether to put you through the system, forcing you to spend at least 24 and perhaps as many as 72 hours in various dirty holding cells as you wend your way through the intestines of the booking system, only to be dumped, looking and smelling like a turd, into a courtroom.

Your chances of getting a Summons/DAT are increased if you:

1) Cooperate with arresting officers by providing them with background information and valid identification. This is the only time when it is useful to talk with the cops. If you cannot prove your identity and residence, you will be fingerprinted and placed through the system. Homeless people are regularly put through the system, even for the most minor offenses. Homeless people should give arresting officers some real, verifiable address, even the name of a friend who will confirm that they stay there.

2) Arrive "clean". After an arrest, you will be searched. Posession of weapons or drugs will result in your being put through the system.

3) Commit a relatively minor infraction. Sitting down in the street and refusing to move, blocking the entrance to a building, and related conduct generally is treated by a summons. Resisting arrest by going limp is usually treated by a DAT. Assault and property destruction will normally result in your being put through the system.

4) Have no outstanding warrants. That court date you missed six months ago (Oh shit! That arrest?) has grown into a bench warrant and will result in your being put through the system.

Lying to the police by showing them false identification is stupid and illegal. It is a crime more serious than the one you are trying to get out of. If they take your fingerprints and you have been printed before under another name, you're in trouble.

Sometimes, a lawyer or responsible adult calling or showing up at the precinct can influence the police to release you rather than put you through the system. (That is why your lawyers usually do not stand there during demonstrations and call the police "fucking pigs.")

If the police use summons procedures, you will be taken to a precinct house. On the Lower East Side, it will be the Seventh Precinct at 26 Pitt Street or the Ninth Precinct at 321 E. 5th Street. A police offficer will ask you background questions. You will then be issued a pink slip of paper with a court date, usually a month from the arrest date, and place, usually at 346 Broadway. Save this paper. You will then be released. If you do not show up within 30 days after your date, a warrant will be issued for your arrest. Persons arrested at the same time may be given differenct court dates--a tactic often used to prevent mass demonstrations at the courthouse. Because off the 30-day rule, you have some flexibility in scheduling your court appearance. Like everything else, going to court is more fun with your friends.

DAT procedure is similar, except that you are often fingerprinted at the station and the prints are faxed off for a warrant check. This usually takes about 3 hours. You are given an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper with a court date and a room number, usually at 100 Centre Street. Unlike the summons, if you do not show up on the date given, a warrant will be issued for your arrest.

If the police put you through the system, you will first go to the precinct for a few hours. From there, you will be taken to Central Booking, at 1 Police Plaza, and you will be photographed (mug shot) and fingerprinted. You have no right to refuse these procedures, and you will not be released until they are completed. You will also be interviewed by a representative from "pretrial services". The result of this interview will be used by the judge in determining whether you should be released on your own promise to appear (release on own recognizance, or ROR). It is important to give them the name and telephone number of someone who can verify the information that you provide. Following this process, which may take up to five hours, you will be taken to one of the precincts in Manhattan and held in a small cell for as long as forty-eight hours. They will take your belt and shoelaces away (really!) while you are in the holding cell. Finally, you will be brought to court at 100 Centre Street, where you will wait in the basement in another cell, as long as overnight. You will be brought "upstairs" to yet another cell, where you will wait a bit longer before getting to see a judge. Just before you see the judge, you will see an attorney, either Legal Aid or from your defense committee.

A trip through the system is no fun, but you can do it. Bring cigarettes, even if you do not smoke. They are the jail system equivalent of barter. A toothbrush is also a handy and useful item of personal hygiene to bring with you.

Once you are in the system, the only way out is to wait until you get to see a judge. Be prepared for the wait. No magazines are furnished. Make sure that your personal matters are taken of. The jail guards do not care about your pets, children, or you. Persons who require daily doses of medication will have their medication confiscated and will not be able to persuade anyone to return it.

Yes, there is a court decision requiring you to be produced before a judge within 24 hours or released. No, it does not help you. In fact, it hurts you because the remedy for the delay is release. The serious felonies are processed first, to prevent them from being released. Since you are getting out anyway, unless you shot the President, you often go to to the end of the line. The Catch-22 for you is that a judge will order you released after 24 hours but it can take 72 hours to see the judge.

DISCLAIMER: The advice given here is meant as a general statement of the law, and should not substitute your spending a pile of money on a real flesh and blood lawyer.

TOP

How police deter dissent: Government critics decry intimidation

David Pugliese and Jim Bronskill
The Ottawa Citizen
http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/specials/criminal/criminal03.html

It usually begins with a public comment criticizing government policy or the posting of a notice calling for a demonstration against a particular cause.

Then comes the phone call or knock on the door by RCMP officers or Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents. The appearance and tone of the callers are professional. But their questions, directed at people involved in organizing legitimate, peaceful protests, are seen as anything but benign. Those who have endured the process view such incidents as blatant attempts to quash free speech.

The tactic of police or spies arriving unannounced on the doorsteps of demonstration organizers or people just contemplating a public rally represents a hardening of the security establishment's dealings with those who openly voice their opinions.

The people receiving the CSIS and RCMP phone calls or visits are not extremists. They're ordinary Canadians -- union members, students, professors and social activists -- who disagree with government policy and want to exercise their rights to free speech and assembly.

"The whole thing is so insulting and to a certain degree very intimidating," says Allison North, a Newfoundland student organizer interviewed by police after she criticized Prime Minister Jean Chretien's record on education.

Ms. North had told a newspaper last May that Mr. Chretien didn't deserve an honorary degree from Memorial University because of his government's cuts to education funding. Shortly after, an RCMP officer questioned her on whether she planned to do anything to threaten Mr. Chretien or embarrass him when he picked up his degree.

At that point, according to Ms. North, her organization, the Canadian Federation of Students, didn't even have plans to hold a demonstration.

"To get a phone call suggesting I am a threat to the prime minister is absurd," says Ms. North, who has no criminal record.

When Mr. Chretien arrived to receive his degree, Ms. North and 19 other students demonstrated peacefully in the rain outside the convocation hall. As he appeared, they turned their backs on him in mute protest. The students were heavily outnumbered by police and security forces.

The RCMP sees nothing wrong with contacting potential demonstrators in advance and letting them know the force is aware of their intentions. Const. Guy Amyot, an RCMP spokesman, says it is standard policy to visit organizers of protests that may become violent or might give police some cause for concern. "We're meeting people who intend to demonstrate just to make sure it's done legally," he explained. "That's all."

Such meetings are voluntary, Const. Amyot said, and protest organizers can refuse to talk to officers if they want.

"If they feel intimidated they just have to tell us they don't want to meet us," he said. "They are not forced to do so."

He acknowledged most of the visits or phone calls have been associated with politically-oriented demonstrations, but added the RCMP respect the right of Canadians to hold legal protests.

Such assurances don't ease the minds of those who have been questioned.

It was a rally to protest government inaction on pay equity that prompted a call to a federal union from Canada's spy agency in October 1998.

When the Public Service Alliance of Canada planned a demonstration in Winnipeg outside a conference centre where Mr. Chretien was scheduled to speak, a Canadian Security Intelligence Service officer phoned union official Bert Beal to question him about the gathering. CSIS wanted to know whether the rally was going to be violent, as well as the number of people attending.

"We're employees of the government legitimately protesting against government decisions that affect our members," says Mr. Beal.

"That is our legal right."

PSAC held a peaceful rally, attended by about 150 people and closely monitored by police. Mr. Beal, involved in the labour movement for 30 years, says this was the first time a rally with which he had been involved elicited a call from the national spy service.

CSIS spokeswoman Chantal Lapalme declined to discuss specific instances when the agency has approached people. But she said CSIS does not investigate lawful advocacy or dissent.

"If we have information that there will be politically motivated, serious violence we might investigate and then we'd report the information we obtained to government and law enforcement."

The period leading up to April's Summit of the Americas in Quebec City saw a flurry of such visits. CSIS officials questioned young people in Montreal and Quebec City who had taken part in an October demonstration.

The agents wanted to know about the chance of violence at the April gathering. Around the same time the RCMP in Quebec visited Development and Peace, a social advocacy organization linked to the Catholic Church, and other anti-poverty groups to question people about their summit plans.

Also targeted before the Quebec City meeting was University of Lethbridge professor Tony Hall, an expert in aboriginal affairs and a vocal critic of the Mounties.

An officer with the RCMP's National Security Investigations Section questioned Mr. Hall about his writings critical of free trade agreements and their effects on indigenous peoples.

The officer also wanted details of Mr. Hall's involvement in an alternative summit being organized for aboriginal peoples in Quebec City, as well as names of others involved.

Mr. Hall's case was raised in the Commons by NDP leader Alexa McDonough, who accused the federal government of trampling on the democratic rights of Canadians.

Mr. Chretien responded that police were just doing their job -- an explanation that failed to satisfy the Canadian Association of University Teachers.

David Robinson, the group's associate executive director, is worried such police tactics threaten academic freedom and open debate on campuses.

Association officials are planning to meet RCMP leaders over what the university group views as a clear violation of the professor's civil liberties.

TOP

Those Crazy Anarchists: Why those kids in black are your friends

By Rachel Wallis

The Revolutionary Anti-Capitalist Brigade was on the tongues and minds of almost everyone attending a16, but few people referred to them as such. Instead, countless conversations took place about the “black bloc” or “those anarchist” and while many of the comments were positive, quite a few of them were not. For those not familiar with the RACB, they are the current incarnation of an anarchist coalition from the Seattle protests whose members took responsibility for the property damage there. I was not in Seattle, and quite frankly what happened there has been discussed to death. I was therefore surprised to see the RACB back in DC, and was shocked to hear what the other protesters had to say about them.

For those of you who did not attend a16, you might not have heard much about the black bloc presence there, which is surprising considering the fact that it included as many as 1000 people at various points during the protest. Sadly, the media is not interested in unbroken windows. Regardless of the media blackout, the RACB played a huge part in the Sunday protest. They traveled in a large mobile group, building blockades, facing off the police, and protecting protesters holding intersections. When riot police rushed the Wesleyan blockade, the RACB poured out in front of us, and succeeded in pushing the cops all the way back down the street. Time and time again, black-clad protesters placed themselves between blockades and batons. Yet the word on the street about the black bloc was often harshly critical and occasionally disturbing.

They’re not with us

When a group of protesters I was with was confronted by a DC citizen, angry with one of the blockades built by the bloc, everyone in the group responded by insisting, “they’re not us, we don’t approve of what they do.” Time and time again, I listened to protesters trip over themselves to criticize the bloc in an attempt to appear more reasonable to the mainstream. We are made strong by the diverse group of people that are a part of the movement, but when we start deciding who is and is not US, we lose a lot of that strength. Curiously, you didn’t hear anyone claiming that right wing allies like Pat Buchanan are “not one of us.” We are only willing to ostracize groups without large chunks of conservative voters behind them.

Those black masks are threatening

Other people remarked that members of the block, regardless of property destruction or their participation in the rally, shouldn’t have worn all black and covered their faces, as it created an image that was threatening or aggressive. WHAT? Since when have we become the fashion police? Clothing in itself is not threatening or aggressive; that power is reserved for actions. By asking people not to dress in a way that represents their beliefs and affiliations because the mainstream media has deemed it “violent,” we have become the very state that we’re trying to change. How different is it from criminalizing certain styles of clothing because they may denote gang affiliation? While puppets and street theater are great, they are not the only forms of expression that should be encouraged in the movement. By outlawing anger or mandating festivity we are alienating our allies.

Rushing the police is not non-violent

Regardless of what you might have learned in your trainings, there is not one end all, be all type of non-violent protest. Theoretically, none of the members of the RACB attacked the police; they simply moved forward, protecting themselves with garbage can lids and fences and forcing the police to retreat. Is this aggressive? Yes. Is it violent? I don’t think so, and neither do they. We are not trying to enforce our concept of non-violence on the entire movement. There are a lot of gray areas where tactics are concerned, and these need to be discussed and explored. We cannot, however, begin handing down definitions of right and wrong behavior without deciding on them within the entire community.

Their actions caused the police to beat the protesters

Sadly, the only people who caused the police to beat the protesters were the police. While the police might have used the bloc as an excuse, the violence would have happened regardless. Consider Seattle, where protesters were being beaten and tear-gassed hours before any windows were broken. We need to hold the authorities responsible for their brutality, and not punish their scapegoats for them.

It’s all those anarchists

Arrghh! While the RACB identify as anarchists, they were by no means the only anarchists attending the protests. In fact, by referring to them as “the anarchists” rather than by their name, you ignore all of the other anarchists in attendance, without whom the protests could not have happened. The non-hierarchical structure of the movement is a concept straight out of the anarchist movement. Food Not Bombs, who provided much of the food for the event is a predominantly anarchist organization. There was even an anarchist soccer tournament that took place on Saturday as a part of the convergence. It is an insult to the thousands of anarchists that are a part of the movement to be either lumped together or ignored completely.
Their actions overshadow our media coverage

This is the most difficult charge to discuss. We all want to be covered well by the media. That is, in fact, one of the main reasons for the protests. But we have to realize that we have no control over the mainstream media coverage, and no matter what, it is unlikely to be favorable. In Seattle they focused on property destruction. Deprived of that focus in DC, they simply pronounced the protests a failure, and lavished the police force with praise for keeping the demonstrators “in line.”

While we can decide that we will not as a group participate in property destruction, we need to decide how far we are willing to go in order appease the gods of mainstream culture. In DC, around 1000 members of the RACB signed the Direct Action Network’s code of conduct, which included statements against property destruction except in the case of police barricades. Thanks to the agreement, there was an extremely limited amount of damage at the protests. One police car’s window was smashed, air was let out of police car tires, fences were used to build barricades, and there was some graffiti; almost all of the destruction was directed at the police. Nonetheless, many protesters were suspicious and hostile towards the brigade. These protesters are fighting the wrong battle. While we may not agree on tactics or dress codes, these people are our allies. Don’t let the mainstream press convince you otherwise.

TOP


translate | support
about | contact


top of page