Swedish police are deemed correct in shooting?

Magwitch

Looking at the Gothenburg EU summit riots it seems to me that authorities (and the citizens they protect) have finally had enough of Anarchists.

I though it interesting to see rioters dubbing themselves "protestors" destorying shops and hotels which have nothing to do with globalism and attacking civilians who tried to stop them.

It has been siad (on these boards) that the initial message of the protests was in danger of being lost. I think that has happened as public patiance has come to an end with communes of middle-class anarchists destroying any city centre the get near.

DadaKopf

Aye, they went straight from perspex shields to bullets. What happened was completely at odds with the stoic, detached nature of the Swedish government when the vice-president was interviewed about the protests. "We must condemn the violence but clearly this is something we should pay attention to" yada yada. Completely different line than from Bush, Blair and Bertie.

Apparently, the Gothenburg police force don't even have water cannons. Still, there are stringent laws surrounding police fire so I'm confident the truth will come out on either side. I'm always one to support anti-corporatism and secret dealings by EU bosses that affect all of our lives and those protesting for more social justice and transparency in the EU institutions are completely justified but violence is violence. The state has as much a right to defend itself from external attack as we do to protest to change it. Simple justification of war theory .

Victor

From what I have heard the police opened fire when they were out numbered and one of them was being beaten on the ground.

Tear gas and water cannon appear to be illegal in Sweden.

I can appreciate the protesters / rioters concerns, but I think this was a 'fair cop'.

---

Changing call sign to SIERRA PAPA OSCAR OSCAR FOXTROT.

Belisarius

LOL ,They would ban teargas/water cannon and not straight up firearms

But I must admit I found the response of Visiting delegates to be deplorable, they ridiculed the entire agenda of protests ,Proclaiming all was well in the world of capitalism , Which quite frankly is rediculous , And most people know that .

---

Shrewgar!

gandalf

Well its looks like Swedish legislation does not allow for water cannons, tear gas or baton rounds (the last one I'm against anyway) so they had no alternative but to use their handguns to protect themselves. If this happened in Germany or France then yes I would be very concerned that Europe was turning into a Police state.

The main problem with these "demostrators" is the fact that their actions allowed the Heads of Government paper over the cracks appearing in the Nice treaty and peoples concerns with the democractic functions of the EU. Infact the real X-File paranoid git I am thought that maybe they(EU) orcastrated it on purpose (well I thought it for a minute or two before dismissing it!)

Gandalf.

DadaKopf

Yeah, the extreme irony of the whole EU summit, which Belisarius hinted at, was the fact that amid politicians' rhetoric, saying that the meeting was in fact about transparency, free trade and democracy, they found themselves deliberating behind closed doors, with no real public interaction or substantial statements about what they're doing. The bigger irony is that protest is the only form of political expression since the political machinations are far removed from 'people's rule'.

There are strong comparisons between what's happening now and what happened in Europe in the 60s - not just opposition and detachment from a distant political elite but widespread strikes and a re-establishment of workers' rights (even if the demographics have shifted). They'll listen eventually.

What needs to be cleared up is this thing about anti-capitalists, anti-globalists, anarchists and so on - politicians are just blanketing them as thugs but in fact they're different groups united under a fairly common cause - another parallel with 1968 (Marxists, Anarchists, libertarians, socialists, hangers on etc.). Until politicians actually recognise publically that the groups are different, they'll never be treated as political activists who have a valid point.

Either way, this isn't going to go away and Nice is just the beginning. Blubbalubba Cowen will have to realise this.

Ballix, this sounds like a sermon. Sorry folks.

ConUladh

One guy came running out of his shop after his window had been smashed and took a swing at one of the rioters, he missed, 2 of them knocked him over and started kicking him on the ground, end of footage, don't know what happened then.

Just a shower of knackers

Celt

Should have shot the lot of the ****ers.

azezil

they've no batton's, no water cannons, and no tair gas what do you expect them to do!, an angry mob attackin me under those conditions i wouldn't hesitate to do the same!

---

"just because you're not paraniod, doesn't mean they're not after you!"

Kix

Saw a picture on the front of one of the papers today. It showed one Swedish policeman flat on his back on the ground surrounded by large cobblestones. Presumably, several had already hit him.

Another policeman was moving over him with his gun drawn and his finger on the trigger. In a situation like this where there clearly was a serious chance of the policeman on the ground being very seriously, evenly fatally, injured use of firearms would be justified under any rules of engagement I can envisage.

Security services can be expected to take more risks in the execution of their duties than the average citizen, but only to a degree.

[This message has been edited by Kix (edited 17-06-2001).]

Shinji

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">There are strong comparisons between what's happening now and what happened in Europe in the 60s - not just opposition and detachment from a distant political elite but widespread strikes and a re-establishment of workers' rights (even if the demographics have shifted). They'll listen eventually.</font>

Rubbish. There was a genuine case of the oppression of workers and the removal of the man on the street from the political process at that point in time.

Interpreting a tiny minority of random knackers causing trouble, and a few strikes from greedy ba$tards (mostly in the public or semi-state sectors) who seem to want to have their cake and eat it, with very few genuine strikes for a genuine cause going on, and very few real demonstrators caring about real issues, as being akin to that important period in our political history, is like comparing a small fart to the nuke that took out Hiroshima.

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DadaKopf:
The state has as much a right to defend itself from external attack as we do to protest to change it. Simple justification of war.</font>

This of course assumes that the state is a seperate entity than it's inhabitants. It's hardly external attack.

DadaKopf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally uttered by Shinji:
Rubbish. There was a genuine case of the oppression of workers and the removal of the man on the street from the political process at that point in time.

Interpreting a tiny minority of random knackers causing trouble, and a few strikes from greedy ba$tards (mostly in the public or semi-state sectors) who seem to want to have their cake and eat it, with very few genuine strikes for a genuine cause going on, and very few real demonstrators caring about real issues, as being akin to that important period in our political history, is like comparing a small fart to the nuke that took out Hiroshima.</font>

I couldn't disagree more. What's going on now is fundamentally the same thing that happened over 30 years ago; essentially it's a conflict between members of an unreceptive, conservative elite and a disenfranchised socialist (in the broadest sense) popular movement.

On the one hand, you have an elite (those in government and business) setting a pro-libertarian agenda and diminishing the role of the state as protector of the less fortunate. All that has changed is that this has been covered up by gestures of illusory freedom, state governance and social justice. Instead of increased personal freedom with social security, European prosperity has found itself in the position whereby people's jobs have never been so uncertain and workers' rights so undermined. Just like in 1968, workers and students alike have found themselves in a position where their only course of action is affirmative action. Everyone knows very well that modern European governments are largely unresponsive to real people's needs. The new twist, of course, is that politics is like a PR business - the elite stays in favour and power through shallow gestures designed to create an image of good government while their real actions are concealed by thin rhetoric and closed doors. Can anyone remember why the EU was set up in the first place?

I mean if you want to compare modern strikes to 1968 strikes, French Renault workers were campaigning not just for increased pay but things like longer holidays! And probably subsidised garlic. They were asking for greater equality in the workplace and basic human rights provisions set down in law with the intellectual tools they had then just like Fatso Charlie Lennon of ASTI was campaiging for pay in line with private sector wages.

If everything is so less legitimate now than in 1968, then why are these strikes gaining momentum throughout the world?

Because the ruling elites are responsible for greater inequality now than, perhaps, in 1968. It's a statistical fact that everyone in the first world and probably the second are getting richer but it's also a statistical fact that the rich are getting richer at a 3:2 ratio to the less well off (roughly). In short, the rich are getting richer and the inequality rift is increasing faster than before. The reason for this is the dominance of a free-trade, libertarian elite and the incestuous relationship it has with big business - but we all know about that.

The scene is this: greater inequality and masked social injustice, a disenfranchised population, a new stage in mass communication and technology, an alert and politically astute generation who is analysing the situation and being pro-active with frustration expressed through violence because it's the only recourse to change the system. An aspiration to bring about greater justice in society given the ageing elite's stale unresponsiveness to rapid global change.

This all happened in 1968, it's happening now.

*Edited for JustHalf: yeah, I meant internal . Take Northern Ireland, for example; the state may not have provided basic human rights provisions to the Nationalist community but when the IRA began attacking the state, the latter was perfectly entitled to protect itself against dissent within but of course, as much as the Nationalists were keen to externalist the British state, the British were willing to externalise the IRA, simply for purposes of justification. True, the state is supposed to serve the electorate and all citizens but when there is internal strife, it must be able to defend itself whether they're right or wrong.

[This message has been edited by DadaKopf (edited 18-06-2001).]

Magwitch

Those with a political message have condemned these acts but have not distanced themselves from the street thugs politically.
If the legitimate message is being smothered it is because of this (because those who SAY they abhore violence are not adverse to having used by others to their ends).

The mob on the streets were bused into Gothenburg, not majotiry Swedes. A travelling monthly anarchist festival of destruction and violence touring European capitols destorying business and dependant jobs is no longer going to be tolerated. And that is proper order.

If these people have a political message that average people would relate to let them take it to the hustings, the streets is the battleground of the extremist (ie. the origins of the Nazi party).

Violence is taken off our streets by the State (you and me). We surrender the power of violence to the police and government we elect to use it to protect us against criminals and enemies of the State (again you and me), criminals and enemies who use it as a tool to earn profit at others expense or infringe our rights.

Sweden does not have a history of such extremist and violent activity, and as per their history adn culture reacted as they saw fit (Swedish politicians and police chiefs backed their peoples actions). YET the protestors expect the Swedes to react in the same way and with the same methods as most other European countries. Perhaps that is "globlaism" on the protestors terms.

As a comparison Kurds and their supporters stormed embassies (inc Irelands) across Germany two years ago to make their political point. The Isrealies shot two of them and the Kurds reaction was "shock". Invade the soverign territory (embassies with sensitive info on premisis) of any nation, push any nation and see how far you get. Radicals are a fringe movement exactly because of their stupidity.


[This message has been edited by Magwitch (edited 18-06-2001).]

Xterminator

I saw on tv the violence that the Ararchists dealt out, and looking at the damage to property and assaults on people and police, i would think that the use of lethal force in such situations is justified.

A warning shot is just that. Ignore it, throw a few more rocks etc, and bang.
1 less scumbag.

Remeber the shopowners, the police, the city citizens etc, they all have rights too.

P.S. Peaceful protest is desirable in a democracy, but violent protest is not.
clear difference between the 2.
Simialritys between the attacks on the Jews in pre ww2 Germany? (The then so called rich).

Shinji

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I couldn't disagree more. What's going on now is fundamentally the same thing that happened over 30 years ago; essentially it's a conflict between members of an unreceptive, conservative elite and a disenfranchised socialist (in the broadest sense) popular movement.</font>

You were doing really well until you decided to call the rantings of a few layabout middle-class socialist wannabes a "disenfranchised socialist popular movement".

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If everything is so less legitimate now than in 1968, then why are these strikes gaining momentum throughout the world?</font>

They are? I presume you have evidence for this?

The vast majority of strikes I see living in the UK are "jobs for life" type strikes; people whinging bitterly that they're no longer needed and hence being laid off. That isn't a socialist movement, that's a basic failure to realise economic realities. Strikes like the Irish teachers strike, where workers are trying to get a fair pay rise and improvement in conditions, aren't actually that common.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">This all happened in 1968, it's happening now.</font>

If you spoke to any soi-disant student "thinker" between 1970 and now, they'd have argued exactly the same things and made exactly the same claims. It's not NEW, and it's no more valid than it was previously. University students who have little experience of the world or human nature look at it all and reckon that we should be smashing systems, without any real concept of why the system exists in the first place.

You're not the first student "activist" to make these points and claim that the revolution is coming. You won't be the last. And eventually after arguing with generations of students with too much time on their hands trying to tell me that a disenfranchised socialist movement of dreadlocked mongs with dogs on strings and copies of the Socialist Worker is about to rise up and smash the state, I'll probably learn to just stop arguing with them, since it's pointless.