Meditations of a Sheep (G20 continued, still)

It was a visceral and still-disturbing experience being kettled by riot police at a G20 protest last month (scroll down a few entries for that story).

(This video dos a good job of capturing the intensity, though I'm glad to say our experience wasn't as long-term, and that eventually most of us were allowed to leave.)

It's taken me a long time to be put a name to this feeling... but it felt, I imagine, a lot like being part of a flock of sheep, as it is hunted by a pack of wolves.

We were unarmed and nonviolent (and intimidated, perhaps?), and they could pick us off at will. All that we could do is crowd closer to one another, and as far as we could from them. (Not that that would do much good – they could have had any of us anytime they wanted).

* * *

And so, what about being violent in self-defence? In a lot of ways, especially in retrospect, it felt wrong that when they violently attacked some of us, we did nothing.

We were sheep.

And the girl who stood beside me, who was violently arrested for peacfully protesting? Why should she be non-violent next time? She refused to be violent, in fact was a vocal part of a protest denouncing earlier violence, and she got beaten and arrested by the police. Next time why not throw rocks at windows, or even at the police?

What are they going to do, arrest her? Beat her up?

* * *

This is why the G20 "security" forces inability to discriminate is so stupid, purely from a tactical perspective. They treated nonviolent protestors, passerbys, reporters, etc. like criminals – even denying them many of the rights criminals get. That's a sure-fire way to radicalize thousands of people, and destroy their trust in police and the system of governance.

You set such a great example. You don't discriminate when fighting for your cause, so why should we?

A monopoly on violence (G20 continued)

One of the defining characteristics of the state is that it has a monopoly on violence, or at least legal violence. But in a democracy, that power is supposed to be subject to all sorts of legal limitations, (and ultimately, the will of the people). But in this case, police officers and decision-makers that are supposed to uphold, enact, and enforce the law used that power, that monopoly on violence, quite ruthlessly, with little regard for the law (see below).

How are we supposed to trust them, those of who were on the streets of Toronto for that week?

Saying that it was an exceptional situation doesn't cut it. The whole point of 'the law' is that it is impartial and always applies. Rights aren't something you can just take away when they're inconvenient or even when you feel threatened.

In theory, the law gives police adequate powers to defend the public, public officials, and public property – while balancing these powers with rights like freedom of speech, freedom from arbitary police power, the rights of suspects and the accused, etc. The whole point of common law is that that balance has emerged over time – it is the product of hundreds of years of legislation and court rulings. That means that if it needs changing or tweaking, you get a democratic mandate from the people and modify it!

You don't draft new provisions onto antiquated legislation, plan to publish it after it will be used, then claim that it was never passed. You don't use this new law on the ground as an excuse to arrest and search people miles away, rather than 5 metres, from the fence. You don't disapear the charges of the only person formally charged under the act because he's going to (understandably) challenge its very constitutionality!

For a few days the people with power, the people with guns and armour got to change the rules.

In Canada, we think we're better than everyone else. Better than the States, that's for sure, to say nothing of all those people overseas. We're nice. We like to think we're nice. We like to pretend everyone's middle-class. We have the rule of law, human rights; we're progressive and liberal, and our military is just for peacekeeping. (The latter is a totally out-of-date perception but we're still coasting on it). Our government might be a little incompetent and all politicians are blowhards at best and crooks at worst, but it basically means well. Most of all, it is legitimate – that's why we have such a free, comfortable society.

But for a few days in Toronto the threat of violence that underlies our government and society was exposed because a few hoodlums wanted to smash some windows so that they could feel like revolutionaries.

That threat is always there, we just don't see it most of the time.



(Click on the image for a larger version. The original is from Chris Harding's "We The Robots", a beautiful, and sadly defunct comic whose archives is well worth your time.)