So who is out of control here?
Pleas for calm falling on deaf ears.
Sitting down makes you a sitting target.
Unsurprisingly the demonstrators gave a very good account of themselves. The demo had the biggest and most disciplined Black block seen for some time. The Police tactic of charging into the crowds thumping everything in sight only succeeded in recruiting more people who were up for confrontation. The cops usually found themselves beating a hasty retreat under a hail of bottles and rocks that were available in abundance. Not a very smart place for them to kick things off?
It has to said that their body armour is impressive to say the least. They were barely flinching as large house bricks were bouncing off them. It should also be pointed out that if people are going chuck masonry around they should be confident about their aim first. Rostock hospital was full to bursting last night and many of those being treated were injured by friendly fire.
Most of those present were trying their best to calm things down. Forming peaceful lines trying in vain to persuade the Police to remove the cause of the confrontation (themselves). Thousands of people were enjoying the concert away from the trouble. The actions of the Police was just recruiting more to the punch up. Batons were being used on anything that moved. Many of the Police looked like they had just indulged in some base speed after a week on the piss. Eventually the organizers of the event managed to negotiate some kind of Police withdrawal and things calmed down.
For a while…
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
Who started it? (Comment)
04.06.2007 12:08
There are two possible conclusions:
1. The police had dressed up as Black Block members to give themselves an excuse to attack the protesters.
2. The Black Block started it. The police can not, of course, allow demonstrators to light things on fire next to civilian buildings.
Alan Smithee
Enough of the "of course"!
04.06.2007 15:19
I am sick of hearing what "of course" the police "cannot allow". What about what the rest of us can and cannot allow the police to get away with? What about that we cannot allow them to get away with preventive detention? With dubbing protesters as "terrorists"? With violating the basic right to protest at the summit site?
Even supposing for a moment that a few people set fire to bins, and supposing (for sake of argument) that they shouldn't have done and that it was unprovoked. How can this justify police violence and aggression against a mass of other people, or violent arrests of a type which it was known would lead to confrontations? If the police interest is in as little social deviance as possible then they will calculate whether their actions will calm or escalate, whether trying to stop or punish some single act of deviance is worth a course of action which will cause many more and much greater harm, whether by provoking others or through abuses by police themselves. The police and their supporters are either too irrational and stupid to make such calculations, or else calculate that police violence is a small price to pay to defend their own unconditional intolerance of deviance.
Incidentally, even the mainstream media (reporting on the day - things changed after the police started spewing propaganda) admitted that the police started the confrontations.
"The police did not contribute to de-escalation," said Monty Schaedel, spokesman for the Rostock Action Alliance. He called the police response "clumsy and unprofessional."
http://www.eux.tv/article.aspx?articleId=9122
Peter Mueller, who was among the demonstrators, had tears streaming from bloodshot eyes after the tear gas was released. "As long as the police were in the background it was OK, but as soon as one took a step closer, it went out of control," he said.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10658862
What goes missing in official accounts is that no distinction is made between being "prepared" for clashes with the state - being masked, equipped, etc - and being "bent on" or determined at any cost to CAUSE clashes with the state. Preparedness can be preparedness for defence in the likely event of state attack or provocation. There have been peaceful protests before (the big march on the last day at Gothenburg, for example) where protesters were prepared for battle but were not forced to fight physically, because police did not interfere in their exercise of basic rights.
Look especially at this previous Indymedia post, to understand the logic of the Black Bloc:
"While marching, German anarchists more or less engage with the police in careful negotiations until the permitted demonstration gets as close to the desired location as possible (such as a financial district, a fascist demonstration, or in this case the EU-ASEM Summit meeting in the town hall), and then, all bets are off. The demonstration will then generally be aggressive towards police lines, attempting to wreck havoc by escaping off the official route as a bloc, or break into small affinity groups to build barricades and attack police cars."
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/05/371873.html
Of course this will not impress fanatics for whom the police have replaced the Kings of old as untouchable "bodies of power" against whom one is never to resist or use force, for whom any provocation or violence by police and the powerful is insufficient to justify breaching the symbolic taboo protecting these state thugs - the same way a slave who responded to an abusive master by striking out, or an Indian who struck a European, was never justified in colonial discourse. Well, let these fanatics whine - their prejudices are deadly, contributing to impunity of agents of the state and to the rise of the police state. It is known very well in Germany, that the threat of state fascism must be met with force.
FTP
Alan is a copper
04.06.2007 21:50
anon
Well...
06.06.2007 09:17
That does not justify what the police did, but it makes it possible for the press to write that we were the ones who started it, and be right.
I saw the police hit unaggressive bystanders in the face because they tripped and stumbled towards the police; of course I dont support them!
Im just stating a fact, that I have observed, that contradicts what the article says: The black block started it.
Maybe you could explain to me the purpose of breaking off from a peaceful protest to light trashcans on fire in a quiet sidestreet?
Alan Smithee
Well...
06.06.2007 09:17
That does not justify what the police did, but it makes it possible for the press to write that we were the ones who started it, and be right.
I saw the police hit unaggressive bystanders in the face because they tripped and stumbled towards the police; of course I dont support them!
Im just stating a fact, that I have observed, that contradicts what the article says: The black block started it.
Maybe you could explain to me the purpose of breaking off from a peaceful protest to light trashcans on fire in a quiet sidestreet?
Alan Smithee