The cops are bastards. 'i 'm just doing my job' is an excuse and a way for them to absolve themselves of responsibility so people do not re-act to their obvious brutality which should be fought back with the anger and aggression that it deserves.

The article states that hundreds of cops came on site and started harassing and beating people - how can that be justified by them just doing their job? Do not delude yourselves that the cops are on your side or understand 'your message'.

Also, in the face of this I don't understand how you can feel empowered by passively sitting down or lying down underneath vechicles or by talking to the bastards while they are busy beating you and stealing and smashing your stuff ? Surely this is disempowering? And when it comes down to it - how actually do you intend to stop climate change by setting up camp in a muddy field and doing a few direct actions against some 'bad' companies. Can someone please explain?


No Pasaran!

Non violence protects the state. When are we going to get that? Not that defending yourself against the filth Unfortunately however the majority white middle class climate campers fear doing anything. Ok so there may be a few `actions` committed with their friends by their side. Many of them being scared of getting arrested, no doubt as this will effect job prospects in the future! However this will achieve little if nothing, and means sweet fuck all to the millions in Bangladesh who will have to develop fins and gills in the not to distant future.

No pas aran

It's a shame that when the G8 is in town protesters can get quite effective in their methods, however for anything else people go limp. Chuck a bottle at the filth and lets party like it's mayday.

Until the cops learn that they cant trample on people, they're going to keep coming back time and time again no matter how many times people form a human chain or peace circle or whatever the hell peaceful protesting does.

The animal rights folks have got it right, tired of being oppressed for acting within the law they're increasingly turning to direct action.

Always nice to be seen as the ones who know what they're doing ;-)

Let us inspire you - it's their pockets they care about! Fight back! Before its too late!

"We have to organize and become involved in well coordinated action which will involve any means necessary to bring about complete elimination of the conditions that exist ...... It takes action to get action." - Malcolm X

"It remains what we would probably consider the No. 1 domestic terrorism threat, because they have successfully continued to conduct different types of attacks in and around the country," FBI Special Agent Richard Kolko, reporting on an ELF arson

Do it like  http://youtube.com/watch?v=K3lTq9jhtME or like  http://youtube.com/watch?v=gEntlTYe8Rk, always works well.

Personally I think that passive non-violent resistance is always more empowering than fighting back with violence. If you think non-violent protest doesn't achieve anything then I think you need to go back and read some history.

I think the international courts have been quite clear in their opinion that, "I was just following orders," is not a legitimate defence.

Animal rights activists ought to be out there defending and liberating the pigs, no?

Moon 23 carry on looking at the moon. You must be a little silly if you think that I`m not aware of history. Recent history says that we cant keep getting twated by the filth and our only response is to hold hands or lock on to vehicles etc. I do not and will not suggest that we actively engage in violence but we must defend ourselves and stop being passive hippies. Wake up moon 23.

You can be passive all you like but the cops are going to keep doing what they're doing time and time again because they know their tactics are effective and that nobody is willing to react.

As 'animal rights folk' posted, that video of protesters kicking in the novartis HQ is how it's done. Companies aren't scared of a bit of chanting, they become afraid when their financial investments are put at risk.

which history exactly?

even the most inspiring non-violent protests in history (ghandi in india or martin luther king in the u.s., for example) owe much of their success to the threat and potential for violence, and the outbreaks of actual violence that went alongside them.

the rioting that frequently rocked the indian subcontinent, the second world war that left the british with far more pressing (and brutally violent) things to worry about than controlling their empire... in fact, it can be argued (george orwell did in his essay on being a cop in the raj) that the way that the non-violent protest kept things under control was a god send to the british.

similarly, the threat and reality of violence played an important role in the political power given to the non-violent civil rights movement...

it's just arrogant to suggest that anyone who doesn't think like you "go back and read some history". anyone with half a brain knows history can be used to back up pretty much any point of view if you give a bit of thought to it. at the end of the day, violence, non-violence, its a question of tactics (or tired ideological debates, if you really want to go there...).

but on a more personal note, the idea that hundreds of cops occupy your space, baton people and then say "only doing my job, actually i think your right, keep up the good work" makes me want to spit in their faces, not cheer on the good will of cops who beat you up and then "make eye-contact"...

Surely it's down to every individual to know what has empowered them and not for Ronja Rose or anyone else to decide what constitutes 'Empowerment'? For some that will simply be going along to the camp and taking that stand for the first time in their lives. For anotrher it will be to face up to the scariness of police dogs. For someone else, it will be to scale a fence and bring down a power station ! Everyone there will be pushing back a personal barrier in the course of the week.

Most of the people there won't have time to be on a computer right now, so I reckon it's people doing nothing who are being the most critical - either the campers are too passive, too violent, too white, the wrong class, wearing the wrong clothes, got the wrong accent etc
Sounds like I'm describing reactionary Daily Mail readers, doesn't it.

It is empowering because we can empower each other
Meeting with like minded aware people, talking, living, fighting with them always helps moves things forward
It is infinitely more productive than sitting on a chair in front of a computer criticising whilst you yourself are actually doing nothing and offering no alternative ideas
At least people are doing something about what they believe in and learning about methods that get somewhere and ones that don't
Yes the police are heavy handed bastards and can be very ignorant and often completely let the authority/power go to their heads
I have little empathy with them, even less so after just finding a photo of my brother being attended by medics after the dawn raid this morning and I'm unable to get down there until later in the week
But is all people are doing allowing themselves to be beaten, stolen from, passively sitting down etc?
No they are trying to fight back, get their points across, make a difference, take direct action, look for alternative solutions and spread the word about them, we have to start somewhere
All power to everyone at the camp for doing something rather than nothing

Sepo, I take you point and it is important too understand that for alot of people this is their first experience of `doing something` but please dont think that just because people are currently sitting in front of a computer we`re not doing anything, We dont need to be surrounded by people and police to do that. The fact is that we`ve been here before and I`m anxious for us to avoid repeating this cycle. The time is and has been here for some time for resistance to the biggest gang on this small Island ie the police which demonstrates that we will defend ourselves. With regard to the climate campers the reality is that the majority are white middle class. The worst thing about it is that they claim to want to build a mass movement yet still cling to their academic exclusive language. The state loves that. Is that really The Daily Hate to say this?

I'm sort of agreeing with the majority of posters here in that i don't believe that non-violence as a 'be all and end all' is ever the right strategy.

It has to be a mixture of the two - a clear-headed demonstration against a state power that can't be defeated head-on, but with the right reserved to use violence when it is the right strategy to do so.

At the climate camp, its probably not strategically wise to start burning out cop vans, but it is strategically sensible to resist arrest and de-arrest, use weight of numbers to push cops off site, and other methods of forceful resistance that the campers can AND DO use. This is much more resistance than most cops will have faced from a political demonstration in a while - they are just not used to being told 'no' anymore. Sad but true.

Some of the flavour of posts here seems to be that because a strategy of violent escalation isn't being used, that the protesters are letting the police do whatever they want, and that the whole thing is pointless. Not true on either count.

If the last 2 years are anything to go by, there will be more direct confrontation with the police in this week than most of us will see all year. The last example of a call for a mass 'guns blazing' type of action was probably Sack Parliament, and we all remember what a waste of time that turned out to be. Climate Camp is far from perfect, very liberal in places, and always in danger of flirting with reformism, but how much of that is down to the fact that those who could argue for a different way only do so from the comfort of their computer chair?

This is an anarchist-inspired and anarchist-led demonstration. (I use anarchist 'led' deliberately, as this is one of the many big problems with the camp) Yet most of us who openly wear a circle A patch aren't there because there are "too many liberals involved and the tactics are not confrontational enough."

If there was a 'climate camp deluxe' down the road that looked like a day on the barricades of Ungdomshuset, I'd understand, but there isn't. We haven't got the strength in depth the Danish have, or the Germans, or the Greeks etc.etc. So, how do we get that depth? Expose more middle-class kids to the true horror of state power, while playing the long game of sympathetic struggle with the working class neighbourhoods.

Climate Camp does the first one better than anything else at the moment.

Anyone who was there knows it wasn't hands in the air that got cops off the site when they invaded it last year. It was people on the camp physically full-on pushing them off.
OK some people got battered. As evidently they do with the non-violent approach. Skip the moral bullshit. It's a tactical decision. When there's few of us and many of them, non-violence makes sense. The rest of the time, often it doesn't.
Soon as work's finished, I'll be there!

The police strategy is clear. They are trying to provoke violence by the campers and will then use that to "justify" their actions.

Guess what, here on Indymedia there are people trying to encourage the campers to do exactly what the police want. I wonder which police force or other shady organisation these people work for.

Why don't the people advocating violence, or "killing the filth", or whatever, fuck off to their BNP/police canteens in fucking shame. What the fuck? Do you think we don't know that the lead "protestor" shouting "kill the pigs" at the last Stop the War march was an undercover policeman? You got outed in the Daily Mail, for fuck's sake! What am I paying my fucking taxes for, for you wankers to sit around trying to stir up trouble? Fuck off back to the streets, get a fucking life, for fuck's sake.

I apologise to my gran for the language. But really, what's going on when undercover policemen start shouting "kill the pigs"? Are you trying to get other policemen hurt? Stop!

It's actually far from confirmed that the bloke shouting kill the cops was actually a cop.

It could well just be Galloway blowing his own trumpet (which has gone strangely silient on the affair recently)

 http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2008/06/27/galloway-fake-protesters-and-the-daily-mail-part-2/

 http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/galloway-fake-protesters-and-the-daily-mail-update/

Meanwhile, acting independently, an unknown individual armed with no more than his grand-dad's hacksaw brings down a pylon before moving on to the BBC transmitter, only for his handiwork to get blamed on the al-qaeda terror network.

Not at the camp, not my place to comment on tactics. Especially not my place to advocate a particular degree of physical force. You have my solidarity regardless.

Things to watch here though:
* the police are trying to provoke people (again)
* Commenters here are advocating increased force where they have no personal stake in the situation there: that's fucked up and wrong-headed.
* the Daily Mail is reading this thread for to have ammunition for scare stories. People might like to bear that in mind before saying "go all ALF on 'em! Off da pigz!"

Here isn't the place for that discussion and the people who have a stake in it are in a field not on the internet.

Peace if you like, love regardless. Stay strong x

This sort of action is very good, empowering because it brings groups together and creates action, effective to a degree because it gets media coverage and there for workers talk about it on their break.

Yes, the climate camp does have a 'middle class' protest image - rightly or wrongly - but mostly because working class people cannot take a week off and go down because we have bills to pay and work to do.

But - working class people, like myself and my friends, know what a bunch of liars and manipulators the cops are, we see this all the time and so we understand whats happening at climate camp - the cops are being over the top provocative to get a reaction and clearly have a political motive.

Thanks to police actions like this, we no longer live in a democratic country - because we can no longer engage in the normal democratic process, such as the right to peaceful protest.

as for cops saying "I am only doing my job" - here is something to think about :

During the post-war trails of the Nazis - the standard defence of the SS was "I was only obeying orders" - ring any bells ??

It wasn't a valid defence then and it isn't now - cops that commit an assault are criminals.

Whether, or not, it is a middle class protest - it is a protest and as far as that goes, the climate camp should have every right to do this - if the state will not allow protest then history has proved that there is only one way to restore democracy - resistance.

References to this on Medialens, which followed this story up, seem to have disappeared.

This is from the original newspaper report. The piece is not written by George Galloway, but by a female journalist, in the women's section of the Daily Mail. I expect that explains the tone. It does seem a very strange story. Remember it is bound to be badly edited, and that she obviously had to cut out the man's name to get it published (a name appeared on Medialens et al later).


STOP THE WAR BUSH PROTEST

...As a throng of protesters built up by the barriers, an extremely animated demonstrator in a white T-shirt caught my eye.

He was near the front screaming abuse at the police and trying to get a friend further back to join him. The second man sheepishly refused his encouragements to edge forward.

The man in the T-shirt was tall, well-built and handsome, smiling but with a hint of menace. He pushed aside children and elderly people.

He continued to shout slogans such as: 'Pigs Out.'

On his back was a black rucksack and he carried a professional-looking camera with a large telephoto lens. Hardly the sort of kit for a few snaps of his day out.

My friends and I, standing a few rows back, asked him a couple of times to calm down, but he ignored us.

I wondered why I was drawn to him. Was it his dark good looks or was I worried for the safety of my 70-year-old friend and children nearby?

Then it dawned on me. I had met this man at a party. I tapped him gently on the shoulder and said: 'Have we met before?'

Instantly he recognised me. 'Hi, how are you? It's really nice to see you here.'

My puzzlement grew. This chap wasn't really the sort you'd expect to see shouting abuse at police officers at an anti-war demo. He was, after all, a policeman himself - and a high-ranking one at that.

I'd met the police inspector at a party around last Christmas. The local mayor was there, along with councillors from other parties and journalists. I'd been asked along by a friend.

Later, we went to a local gay club, where I danced with him and a few others until 3.30am.

He had a bolshie charm, was cocky and a little manipulative. He was also highly entertaining, bragging about his work in the police and how important he was.

I remained bemused about his presence at the demo. I asked if he would send me copies of his demo photos. He replied: 'No, they're to put on my bedroom wall.'

I then casually asked why he was shouting anti-police slogans.

'Funny you chanting that,' I said, 'when you're a policeman.'

They don't have my sort in the police, love,' he said camply, so I would assume he was referring to being gay. A few seconds later, he melted into the crowd.

I wondered whether he was at the demo undercover, deliberately whipping up trouble that he could capture on camera. That would then be used to malign anti-war protesters as dangerous and violent subversives.

Of course, it is possible he was there off-duty to support the anti-war cause, but it is hardly likely he would enjoy chanting slogans against the police.

Equally, he could have been legitimately monitoring the crowds, but again he surely would have been quieter.

I realise there are times when the police need to work undercover if they suspect a crime is being committed. But that is quite different to going into a crowd as an agitator to create disruption.

Full piece here

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1028224/Was-friend-yelled-abuse-police-anti-war-demo-stooge-thug-asks-writer.html


The - Daily Mail - comments section after the piece includes this:

"Another agent provocateur. It is a sad fact that the police in this country are no longer serving the public whilst vehemently proclaiming that they are. It goes far deeper than this. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is illegal, Blair is being investigated by Scotland Yard for war crimes, and Bush is being lined up for impeachment by Dennis Kucenich. Why won't the media report this? Because you are under control and don't need to know."

There are some good points in amongst this lot and it's true that you don't have to be a) at the camp, b) middle class or c) in a group with others to BE ACTIVE!
To the Hacksaw genius: I read a brilliant thing in an Earth First mag about working silently, purposefully and anonymously as an individual activist whose handiwork won't get recognition but which can make a difference. Respect for activism without the kudos! But also, respect for the mass movement too. Both have their place don't they?

thanks to indymedia for providing a space for such a debate- one that seems recurring in the movement and important if there is to be system change.

all methods discussed here are effective; discriminate sabotage, NVDA, standing up to cops, and i would also like to throw in the work of NGO's. yes NGO's!

climate change is a problem that requires practical solutions. we have a time period to fix the causes of it, 100 months. if we are to fix it then as a movement of movements it is time we began to accept our difference in approaches. if individuals feel the best method suited to them is to hacksaw pylons then go for it! if others feel they want to knock on people's doors and talk to them about the free market failure of climate change due to profit being placed even before life itself, then go for it!

we shouldn't then attack and have to defend our own tactics from eachother- this is a waste of energy and also ultimately places borders up against a section of society who want to see system change. some may disagree with this for not wanting to be placed in the same breath as 'a middle class liberal kid' or a 'violent anarchist'. but this is where OUR own problem lies. climate change requires a quick practical solution and we must work together and see that any energy into doing so is worthwhile, even if it doesn't lie in our own philosophies. if you disagree with the type of person at climate camp.. what harm are they doing in terms bringing a sustainable society? if anything they are promoting it.

climate camp seems set-up to be media friendly- it some ways it is the 'acceptable face of activism'. a violent response to the police would not have fitted this and undermined any work that has been done in raising it's own and the profile of climate change into society's conscious.

i'm sure there are people there who would have wanted a more aggressive response to police if the situation had been different.

ps middle class people go to work to you know. they also have bills to pay.

this violent versus non-violent debate is weak... it puts me in mind something i read by unconventional action who plan to act against the republocrat conventions... its quite long but you arguing people need to read it...

"Why Diversity of Tactics?

Communities in resistance are often plagued by conflicts over which tactics are most effective and appropriate. Such debates are usually impossible to resolve -- and that�s a good thing. Instead, to the extent it is possible, the activities of those employing different methods and even those pursuing differing goals should be integrated into a mutually beneficial whole.

Accepting a diversity of tactics provides for the broad diversity of real human beings. Every individual has a different life history, and consequently finds different activities meaningful and liberating. Insisting that everyone should adopt the same approach is arrogant and shortsighted -- it presumes that you are entitled to make judgments on others� behalf -- and also unrealistic: any strategy that demands that everyone think and act the same way is doomed to failure, for human beings are not that simple or submissive. Critics often charge that the tactics they oppose will alienate potential participants, but the more diverse the tactics employed by a movement, the wider the range of people who can recognize among those tactics approaches that appeal to them. It may be necessary for factions applying different tactics to distance themselves from one another in the public eye, but this need not be done in an antagonistic spirit.

A movement that employs a diversity of tactics is able to adapt to changing contexts. Such a movement is a laboratory in which various methods can be tested; the ones that work will be easy to identify, and will naturally become popular. As we haven�t yet succeeded in overthrowing capitalism once and for all by any method, all methods are still worth trying, in case one works. In this sense, those who employ tactics other than the ones you favor are doing you a service by saving you the trouble of having to test them for yourself.

Different tactics, applied in conjunction, can complement one another. Just as the more confrontational politics of Malcolm X forced privileged whites to take the non-violent civil disobedience of Martin Luther King, Jr. seriously, a combination of tactics from accessible and participatory to militant and controversial can simultaneously attract attention to a struggle, offer opportunities for people to get involved at their own pace, and provide those who engage in it with leverage on a variety of levels.

Honoring a diversity of tactics means refraining from attacking those whose chosen approaches seem to you to be ineffective, and instead focusing on what missing elements you can add to make their efforts effective. Thus, it reframes the question of strategy in terms of personal responsibility: at every juncture, the question is not what somebody else should be doing, but what you can do.

The importance of a diversity of tactics doesn�t apply only when it is convenient for you. Don�t claim to believe in a diversity of tactics and then argue that -- just in this particular case, of course -- others should prioritize your agenda over their own. Recognizing the value of diversity of tactics means taking into account that others will make different decisions based on their differing perspectives, and respecting this even when their decisions baffle you.

Accepting the legitimacy of a diversity of tactics means moving from a competitive mindset in which there is only one right way of doing things to a more inclusive and nuanced way of thinking. This contests hierarchies of value as well as of power, and undermines rigid abstractions such as 'violence' and 'morality'.

Finally, respect for diverse tactics enables disparate groups to build durable solidarity. Such solidarity must be founded on a commitment to coexisting and collaborating in harmony, rather than on limiting demands for unity.

Just as some shortsightedly reject tactics other than their own as ineffective, others feel the need to compete to determine whose tactics are the most committed or the most impressive. But the most dramatic triumphs of militant direct action are only possible thanks to the support of people applying more conventional approaches, and vice versa. It is important that we not see tactics as existing in a hierarchy of value from risk-free and insignificant to dangerous and glorious, but rather in an ecosystem in which all play an irreplaceable role. As revolutionaries, our role in such an ecosystem is to create a mutually-enhancing harmony between our efforts and those of others, even if some of them want to waste time competing with us for the currency of 'being right' or 'being bravest'. No tactic can be effective alone; all can be effective together. "