US: A Free Democracy

CarpetFool

While the US army go to 'liberate' Iraq, this appears in the Irish Times:

Police arrested more than 1,000 people in San Francisco last night as tens of thousands protested across America against the US war in Iraq.

Go free world !!!

Éomer of Rohan

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

The Surgeon

If I go on an anti war protest and sit down in the middle of the road I should be arrested. Thats the law.

It's against the law to sit in the road? O...kay. As long as people are not throwing bricks through shop windows or attacking police without provocation, I don't see why such forms of peaceful protest is illegal. When you consider what they are protesting against, being arrested for blocking traffic seems pretty pathetic.

imp

Originally posted by daveirl
People can and do protest in the US. No one stops that.

Of course. Its not as if the courts cancelled the International Day of Action in New York. No of course not. Not at the request of Mayor Blooomberg or anything.

Though they did still allow a very small protest...

}:>

Hmmm, how many Iraqi citizens, have had to leave the country, because, they disagreed with Sadam's Regime??
Millions.

And Carpetfool and Éomer are trying to say,orderly protest or a different shade of opinion is not tollerated in the U.S:rolleyes:
One should get a little perspective on the subject rather than state nonsense.
mm

bonkey

What I find funny is that Irish media reported it as "over 1000", Swiss media as "1,300", and CNN as "scores".

I dont know whether or not the 1,000 arrests were justified. There are obviously security threats, there was civil disobedience....so there is at least some justification.

However, I was disappointed in seeing a report about Times Square where an interviewed policeman basically said "yes, they're being well behaved, but as soon as they cause a traffic obstruction, they will be given the choice of dispersing or being arrested". To compare...I wonder how many civilians were arrested when U2 recorded that video (Streets have no name?) on top of a building and they all flocked to watch - cause they sure as hell caused a traffic obstruction.

<OffTopic>
I'm regretting not having better Swiss-German, as the local news coverage here is superb. One of the first things I heard from an expert asked about the situation was "well, no-one really knows, because both the US and Iraq are well known for reporting what they want to be heard in time of war, so the real facts are pretty much unknown most of the time". Unfortunately, I "heard" it second-hand....having my SO translate the bits I missed for me.
</OffTopic>

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
To compare...I wonder how many civilians were arrested when U2 recorded that video (Streets have no name?) on top of a building and they all flocked to watch - cause they sure as hell caused a traffic obstruction.
jc

Probably very few, if none at all Bonkey.
But there would be a difference, between, eventually moving off a highway when instructed by police, (which they probably did, after U2's impromptu gig was shut down) and say, having a sit down protest, whereby, only being dragged off the road by police( and arrested as a result ) was how the highway was cleared.

mm

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

DadaKopf

There's obviously a fine line between 'legitimate public protest' and 'civil disobedience' and I think 'belligerance' is the yardstick that's used by law enforcement officers to decide whether there should be arrests made or not. The question always addressed is: how volatile is the crowd? The application of these laws is more attitudinal than strictly legal so, however liberal or draconian the laws of protest are, they're always open to detectable hypocrisy and abuse.

There has obviously been a clampdown on protesting rights since Seattle, but especially since 9/11 so it's fair to say that civil disobedience is a pretty brave way of pointing out the excesses of anticonstitutional, draconian laws in the US. If anyone saw the anti-war demonstration in Amman on the news yesterday (where any spontaneous assembly is totally illegal), it appeared to be a fairly close analogue to scenes yesterday in the US. It's nice to see America portray the Orient as un(der)civilised when their state is up to the same dirty tactics.

To finish: there's an implicit attitude by people outside the movement (by police officers, politicians or people in favour of the war) that the protestors are irrational, beyond reason and incapable of behaving themselves. This attitude instantly translates 'belligerance' or 'civil disobedience' into offensive confrontation and aggression in the minds of the police officers who then see it as their duty to act with all the force of the law (or beyond the law, as some cases have turned out). I mean, what harm can a group of people sitting in a middle of a road actually cause?

In Dublin we've seen so many protests in which this happens but the Gardai simply nudge the protesters off the road with a firm hand of the law. This preserves face on both sides and is the most effective way to deal with protesters and civil disobedients.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

DadaKopf

When people are being arrested, there are generally three kinds of reactions: (1) go with them willingly (2) try to get away (3) go limp.

(1) is fine so long as you haven't done anything but the Public Order Act is too draconian, people can be charged for the most minor of things so if you do this, cooperation is no defence.

(2) is actively resisting arrest, which is a natural reaction (especially if you've done nothing wrong) but is against the law. However, as mentioned above, the Public Order Act doesn't really take into account wrongful arrest. Resisting arrest is, in itself, a chargeable offence. In this scenario, either the protester has something to hide, or nothing to hide.

(3) is also considered to be resisting arrest. I'd always consider resisting arrest to be something someone has to actively do. Going limp can hardly be resisting arrest if said person isn't preventing their own removal or arrest. And, as with the Public Order Act, you're likely to be charged.

My point is that the violent scene we're seeing on Sky News etc. are natural responses to getting arrested and it seems that there is no escape from being charged for a breach of the peace, no matter how compliant you are. In America, and Jordan, the act of spontaneous assembly itself is technically illegal when the police say so, which doesn't actually secure public protest in law. Rather, it closes it in between some very strict, tight parameters which are, to many, smothering and unjustifiable.

It's been said a million times but: for two countries that reiterate the need for freedom of expression in Iraq, the US and UK are doing a damn fine job at killing it in their own country.

dahamsta

Sky aren't doing a good job.

It's to be expected, but it is a pity that the choices for 24-hour news are the forgivably pro-America CNN and the gung-ho pro-war tell-em-this-way-cos-rupert-said-we-should our-polls-are-so-right-wing-they've-fallen-off-the-planet[1] Sky News. It'd be a different story if I had broadband, but such is life I guess[2].

I have a tape from Thursday night where The Sky News reporter in Kuwait is wearing a gas mask and then I changed channel to RTE who also had a live report from the same location and Charlie Bird was breathing the clean air deeply. The Sky guy in the mask makes a better story I assume!

I remember passing through Sky News when Baghdad was being bombed on the first night, and hearing the Sky reporter telling whatever tosser anchor was on at the time that he was "going to have to take cover now!" If /I/ was out there, I think I can safely say that I'd have tunnelled under the foundation of the building for safety several hours previous, but I couldn't help thinking with a smirk at the time: "Yeah, Kate Adie and John Simpson always took cover when the bombs started dropping too. Wuss."

adam

[1] It's funny about those polls actually, they're always heavily right-wing when I see them on the telly, but when I look at the archives, they seem to sway back in time. Kind of a social comment on lefties.
[2] I'm not a war junkie by the way, in fact I find it too depressing to keep on all the time. I just like to keep informed of current events.

Éomer of Rohan

Hmmm, how many Iraqi citizens, have had to leave the country, because, they disagreed with Sadam's Regime??
Millions.

And Carpetfool and Éomer are trying to say,orderly protest or a different shade of opinion is not tollerated in the U.S
One should get a little perspective on the subject rather than state nonsense.

But the point you ignore is the hypocrisy of all this.

America is a 'democracy' and vaunts itself as land of the free and all that twaddle - yet it isn't as we have demonstrated.

Iraq is controlled by a brutal regime that makes no bones about it.

Iraq we disagree with and accept that things must be done but what we do not accept is the propagandist bull**** coming from the USA and tell me, which is the liar? It isn't Iraq. What can anyone do to a nation that tells itself it is the land of the free, protector and indeed the definition of democracy when in fact it is far from it?

Barry Aldwell

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
America is a 'democracy' and vaunts itself as land of the free and all that twaddle

People are free to protest, but when they stage a sit down protest in the road they are impeding the freedom of movement of the motorists using the streets. You can't say that one person should be allowed to impede the freedom of another. The police tell them to move and they are trying to secure the freedoms of the motorists, which, last time I checked, is their job.

I accept that most of the "reasons" for the war are total BS, but Saddam has to be deposed, as he is impeding the freedoms of the Iraqi people.

DadaKopf

But the point is the hypocrisy of the law's application in the US (and other countries). It's fine for U2 to block the streets of NYC but it's not for anti-war protesters.

It's also a question of value. Which is most important: a gig, or freedom of political expression?

Just what is the rationale here?

Barry Aldwell

Originally posted by DadaKopf
But the point is the hypocrisy of the law's application in the US (and other countries). It's fine for U2 to block the streets of NYC but it's not for anti-war protesters.

That crowd would have dispersed after the gig was stopped. All the police had to do to break them up was stop U2. I don't think that a cop can call up George Bush and say "I'm sorry, but can you stop the war so these protesters will disperse?"

Originally posted by DadaKopf
It's also a question of value. Which is most important: a gig, or freedom of political expression?

Freedom of policital expression is fine, but not when it impinges on other's freedom of movement.

Éomer of Rohan

Freedom of policital expression is fine, but not when it impinges on other's freedom of movement

I am sorry but I disagree - freedom of political expression is far more important than what you term freedom of movement; consider that there are many ways to get from A to C and it is not always via B. Increasingly in modern 'democracy' the ballot box is less a form of choice than a form of acquiescence to the system of downwards spiralling and stuffy, uninventive politics - thus if people need to protest to make a difference then so be it; that choice supersedes most others.

DadaKopf

Yeah, see that's where the hierarchy of rights comes in: freedom of movement (in your sense) is *way* subordinate to the UN Charter's idea of freedom of movement which is, itself subordinate (both in the UN charter *and* the US constitution) to freedom of political affiliation, expression and assembly.

There's plenty of roads in NYC. If drivers are blocked, they can easily take another route and walk.

Barry Aldwell

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
thus if people need to protest to make a difference then so be it; that choice supersedes most others.

I agree that freedom of political freedom is very important, but how would you feel if you were in an ambulance dieing, but couldn't get to a hospital because people were blocking the streets in "protest"?

DadaKopf

I'm sure radio dispatch would have already devised a contingency plan and were ready to advise a similiar alternate route. If that route was unrealistic, I'm sure protesters would accomodate an ambulance crossing its path.

Barry Aldwell

That's simply a "what if?" example, and illustrates why freedom of movement is needed. In any case, intentionally blocking a street, even after being told to move, is civil disobediance.

dahamsta

because people were blocking the streets in "protest"?

Why the quotes Barry?

adam

Éomer of Rohan

That's simply a "what if?" example, and illustrates why freedom of movement is needed. In any case, intentionally blocking a street, even after being told to move, is civil disobediance

Yes it illustrates that even in a protest, emergency services would invariably be allowed through - what reason would there be to obstruct them? None. I think Dadakopf had an excellent point. You seem very pro-administration or civic duty or whatever; I wonder are you so constricted by your pro war views that you cannot see that civil disobedience is sometimes warranted - who is to say when? I practically guarantee that you support the Chinese who took to the streets of Beijing in 1991 - and so people in our nations were doing the same over something they considered just as important.

Sand

I believe there are far more ways to protest than there are to divert around idiots blocking steets. I dont believe anyone has a right to stop me from going where I want to go, or to make that journey anymore difficult, time consuming or dangerous than is reasonable.

Hell, if blocking streets is civil disobedience and thus exscusable surely protest against the protestors by driving straight through them is civil disobedience of a sort too? Were both showing utter disregard for other people, and were both exscusing our actions by stating that other people can take action to avoid any convenience to themselves (You can go around - and You can get the hell out of my way).

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Sand
I believe there are far more ways to protest than there are to divert around idiots blocking steets. I dont believe anyone has a right to stop me from going where I want to go, or to make that journey anymore difficult, time consuming or dangerous than is reasonable.

Hell, if blocking streets is civil disobedience and thus exscusable surely protest against the protestors by driving straight through them is civil disobedience of a sort too? Were both showing utter disregard for other people, and were both exscusing our actions by stating that other people can take action to avoid any convenience to themselves (You can go around - and You can get the hell out of my way).

GRRRR!!!

So you're an anarchist. Deadly.

Zombrex

Barry Aldwell
Freedom of policital expression is fine, but not when it impinges on other's freedom of movement.

Sand
I believe there are far more ways to protest than there are to divert around idiots blocking steets. I dont believe anyone has a right to stop me from going where I want to go

Er ... wtf

I supposed that the LUAS project is an attack on your civil rights to drive a car anywhere u want.

I would love to know when it became morally wrong to gather and protest on public roads. When did motorist get more rights than everyone else. When did it become more important to protect "freedom of movement" (what ever that is) than to protect freedom to gather and demonstrate. For thousands of years people could walk and gather on roads, now if you (heaven affend) block traffic, by being there first, you are oppressing freedoms.

Meh

Originally posted by Wicknight
I would love to know when it became morally wrong to gather and protest on public roads.

Nobody is suggesting that protesting is morally wrong. But there is no absolute right to protest -- society has to strike a balance between the right to protest and the right to freedom of movement. Otherwise every nutcase with a half-baked grievance will be lying down in the middle of O'Connell Street. (I'm not referring to the anti-war protesters here; even though I disagree with much of what they have to say, many of them also make some very good points.)

It's perfectly possible to make your voice heard in public without stamping on the rights of other people. I wonder what your position would if a bunch of pro-war protesters decided to the street outside your house...

Éomer of Rohan

But there is no absolute right to protest -- society has to strike a balance between the right to protest and the right to freedom of movement.

But when 100,000 people protest in Dublin, 2 million in London or half a million in Washington DC, right is undeniably on their side; they represent a relatively HUGE part of the society in which they live; thus there can be an absolute right.

From this point of view of course, someone has to sit down and set up guidelines regarding the amount of people necessary (attending the protest) to supersede what you are calling 'freedom of movement' which is not impinged upon - simply inconvenienced whereas where the reverse true and protesters are to give way to Traffic, a) there is a dangerous health and safety situation and b) the point being made is lessened since one would inevitably be unable to hear speakers over the deliberate revving of pro - war engines (something that would invariably happen - whatever one side was protesting about, the other would try to drown them out). The case stands that freedom of political expression, about how the government runs the country - what the government does to other countries etc is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than a temporary inconveniencing in the right to shop, travel through a city centre which can be skirted and oftentimes, shops are shut when such marches are planned or just drive down for the sake of it.