• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Protesting while serving

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mellian, one thing I think you need to understand about the people you meet on this site.  These are generally speaking aggressive individuals, much like the black balaclava brigade that shows up to your protests.  However, they are also very highly disciplined people and while they look forward to the opportunity to get to grips with the other side they (generally) only do so under lawful authority and within strictly defined limits.....and they quit when told to.  Unlike aggressive anarchists that respect no authority and are not self-disciplined.

As to why the Army attracts/recruits aggressive individuals?  It is easier to teach an aggressive individual to accept authority and discipline themselves than it is to teach someone prone to cowering to break cover and attack.
 
Jungle said:
As I mentionned in that earlier discussion, Mellian will find adapting to the Military a difficult, if not impossible, task.

Do you mean to say that the military doesn't highly value free thinking non-conformists?  The next thing you're going to say is that the military is a team with everyone playing on the same side. (attempt at ironic humour)
 
Mellian and Marlborough: What precisely do you (want to) protest against, anyway?
 
Dennis Ruhl said:
Do you mean to say that the military doesn't highly value free thinking non-conformists?  The next thing you're going to say is that the military is a team with everyone playing on the same side. (attempt at ironic humour)

The military does in fact value free thinking non-conformists.  It's a requirement for having soldiers who are mentally agile tactical thinkers.  There are only ever issues when that free-thinking isn't tempered with military discipline.

The perfect army would be a legion of self-disciplined individuals working towards a common goal.
 
mellian said:
Because the police has been known to use tear gas against or near peaceful protests. Case in point, Quebec City and Seattle. Police use teargas in attempt to disperse a protest, regardless if it is peaceful or just because of a few out among a thousand being troublemakers.

Police prepares for the worse, and so does organized protesters.
I'd be very interested if you could elaborate a little bit on what alternatives the police have in a situation like that? There may be a "few" troublemakers, but in a crowd of thousands that are already emotionally riled up, that is a recipe for disaster.

What are the police to do? They obviously cannot go INTO the crowd and get rid of the few troublemakers. The troublemakers are often LOOKING for police brutality to show off to the rest of the crowd, and the REST of the crowd aren't helping matters by letting the troublemakers behave poorly in the group.

Teargas, in an example that you brought up, is a very legitimate, and good, response to your scenario.
 
Mellian:

Do not mistake my previous post in favour of lawful protest as support in any way for your position regarding "the authorities".  I WAS one of "the authorities" for most of my adult life - and what others here have said regarding escalation, minimal use of force, and "instigators" certainly rings true with me.

Although I support the exercise of legal protest as a legitimate means to voice one's opinion - and I remain of the opinion that members of the CF should not be nervous about participating in such lawful assemblies - I do not think protest is very often an effective way to effect change.  It is, usually, a "lark" for many of those participating, none of whom are willing to actually roll up their sleeves and DO something to effect the change they want.

There are exceptions - and I have nothing against "larks" - hell, I've had a few myself.  But, USUALLY, a protest, whilst legal, is ineffective.
 
Wonderbread said:
So you're saying that gas masks are used by innocent protesters to protect themselves from the illegal actions of the police?

No, I am saying when facing the possibility that a protest may get tear gassed for whatever reason, medics carry first aid and prevention supplies to handle with complications from tear gas. This includes water, vinegar, napkins and such to soak up the vinegar, some clothes, and disposable medical filter masks. These are distributed to all those that seem unprepared, whether they are a protester or bystander. If anyone wearing gas masks, then they brought it themselves.

PMedMoe said:
mellian, I don't think anyone here is intending to say that protests and riots are the same thing.  I think the general feeling is that protests have the potential to become violent.

I also don't think that all protest groups (such as the ones you have been involved with) have the intention of holding a violent protest, but you'd have to be quite naive to believe that a protest (any protest, no matter how nonviolent they say they are) holds an attraction to those who hope it involves rioting/looting, etc.

You'd be quite naive to believe that most protest organizers are not aware of that, and have not tried to minimize that from happening. That is the point I am trying to make.

Lets take the protest group I was involved with. We have a set core of people of 10-15 people that started organizing for a protest a month or more in advance to a less of a week or even a less of a day of. We are volunteers and we all agree of the goal of having a safe and non-violent protest, and we proceed to organize to achieve that as much possible despite knowing there will be those who prefer more direct action or simply agitators, there for the fun of it.

Most we can do about them is contact relevant group we know locally and tell them of our plans, and ask them to keep them more direct methods separately. They have just as much right at protesting and being there, so we cannot stop them, we just can be ready for it and inform as many people as possible, including the police, of our peaceful plans. Then there is all the unknowns within the city and those from other cities or even countries we have no way to account for. Most we can is organize a rest area for food, and one large group meeting nights before and during the protest for those interested in the organized plan of a peaceful protest. We have no authourity over all the people that will be attending and participating the protests, we can just influence them. If they do not listen and go against us, not much we can do about it.

Despite planning a peaceful and non-violent protest, we are not naive that shit will not hit the fan despite what we do to discourage it from happening. So we setup legal clinics for anyone that gets arrested in relation to the protest, and their job to keep track of those arrested, get their names, and do whatever we can to get them out of jail. Then we have medics carry first aid supplies plus extra to handle 'non-lethal' methods of the police as well injuries due to idiocy of people throwing rocks and other stuff. Then we have marshals to enact the plans and help coordinate large amount of people into marches and demonstrations on set, as well do what we can to keep them safe. If people go out of line, causing trouble within or near the march/demonstration, most we can shout them that is not the plan and keep the rest together, as we have no authourity over them nor part of our core group and usually we do not know them anyway.

Last thing we need is have large crowd fracture and fight among themselves, losing all influence and all cohesion, resulting in chaos and huge mess that may lead to a riot with a lot of people getting hurt. Needs of the peaceful many outweighs the needs of a few agitators. Usually they stop and get back with the main group seeing no one is supporting them in their actions, but that is not always the case and again, not much we can do about it.

We have at least one person or more designated as police liaisons, and we let the police aware of that, so we can maintain some kind of communication. Many of us know from experience that the police are prone to be more agitated and aggressive without someone to speak to. Also why we tell them of our plans day or so or more before the protest, usually some time after we acquire some information as to where their barriers and no-go areas will be. We sometimes have designated back up liaisons in case the police decide to arrest our first one or two for whatever reason.

Then we have to prepare for what the police may or may not do, and the affects of their presence upon the protest. This includes, as much as we can, be prepared for intimidation tactics, snatch teams, isolation tactics, tear gas, dogs, etc. It would be irresponsible of us to ignore this possibility, no matter our goals of a peaceful protest.

I can't say much about elsewhere, but in Ottawa, doing what we can to keep the peace has prevented from protests degenerating into riots, no matter the obstacles and challenges. This also influence the police in how they handle a protest despite their own bias, as some of them realize how benefit it is to have an organized group with aims of peaceful protest, and them focusing more on groups they consider problematic.

Can't lead a large crowd like an hierarchical unit, can only influence. Organizers and marshals are only human and minority in comparison to the rest, and doing this without any particular training. To call them naive for supposedly being unaware of reality, to call themselves agitators for simply being prepared or not have some CO like authourity and accountability over a large amount of people only makes one naive themselves. 


In line with the original post here, I think people were trying to say, yes, it's okay to protest, however, when the feces hit the fan, take into consideration, you may be arrested for something else and the CF will most certainly not be happy about your involvement, no matter how peaceful you claim your protest to be.

Sometimes, being in the wrong place at the wrong time is avoidable.

I know, but people are also showing their contempt, joyful fantasies of bashing protesters' heads, and equating protests to riots. I am simply speaking out of my own past experiences in response in attempt to educate. I am presently not involved with these groups for couple of years now since moving, and I do not plan to be involved again there or anywhere else, especially if I am going to be in the CF...as I mentioned earlier in the thread.
 
mellian said:
...
Most we can do about them is contact relevant group we know locally and tell them of our plans, and ask them to keep them more direct methods separately. They have just as much right at protesting and being there, so we cannot stop them, we just can be ready for it and inform as many people as possible, including the police, of our peaceful plans. Then there is all the unknowns within the city and those from other cities or even countries we have no way to account for. Most we can is organize a rest area for food, and one large group meeting nights before and during the protest for those interested in the organized plan of a peaceful protest. We have no authourity over all the people that will be attending and participating the protests, we can just influence them. If they do not listen and go against us, not much we can do about it.
...


Of course there is something you can do: you can refuse to be complicit in lawlessness and violence. You can either:

1. Turn on the criminals - because that is what they are, not one whit less - and beat the crap out of them or, better, detain them for the police; or

2. Cancel the useless, probably ill-informed protest before the criminals can exploit the opportunity YOU created.

The responsibility for the violence that accompanies most protests rests, almost always, with the  immature and irresponsible protest organizers. They aid and abet criminals in criminal acts and ought to be held fully accountable for their irresponsibility.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Of course there is something you can do: you can refuse to be complicit in lawlessness and violence. You can either:

1. Turn on the criminals - because that is what they are, not one whit less - and beat the crap out of them or, better, detain them for the police; or

2. Cancel the useless, probably ill-informed protest before the criminals can exploit the opportunity YOU created.

The responsibility for the violence that accompanies most protests rests, almost always, with the  immature and irresponsible protest organizers. They aid and abet criminals in criminal acts and ought to be held fully accountable for their irresponsibility.

Have you even read the entire post?

Protests happen no matter what with or without marshals and organizers, because there is simply to many people who disapprove of whatever the protest is about.  What you suggest will lead to a riot, getting yourself and others hurt, and in the end, probably arrested too and labeled an agitator.

 
mellian said:
Have you even read the entire post?

Protests happen no matter what with or without marshals and organizers, because there is simply to many people who disapprove of whatever the protest is about.  What you suggest will lead to a riot, getting yourself and others hurt, and in the end, probably arrested too and labeled an agitator.

So then you would agree that using tear gas to disperse a crowd would be necessary to deal with the "bad apples"?
 
mellian said:
So you're saying that gas masks are used by innocent protesters to protect themselves from the illegal actions of the police?

No, I am saying when facing the possibility that a protest may get tear gassed for whatever reason, medics carry first aid and prevention supplies to handle with complications from tear gas. This includes water, vinegar, napkins and such to soak up the vinegar, some clothes, and disposable medical filter masks. These are distributed to all those that seem unprepared, whether they are a protester or bystander. If anyone wearing gas masks, then they brought it themselves.

So you agree then that the cops are acting legally?

And if the cops are using teargas in a legal way then why would medics undermine the effectiveness of it?  Isn't that contrary to your commitment of maintaining law and order?

Despite planning a peaceful and non-violent protest, we are not naive that crap will not hit the fan despite what we do to discourage it from happening. So we setup legal clinics for anyone that gets arrested in relation to the protest, and their job to keep track of those arrested, get their names, and do whatever we can to get them out of jail.

How can you say that on the one hand that you are discouraging criminal behavior, but on the other hand do whatever you can to get those arrested out of jail? 

If your true concern is that the protest is carried out in a peacefully and you agree that the cops are arresting people and using teargas in a legal way, then why would the organizers go out to support those committing criminal acts?
 
mellian said:
Have you even read the entire post?

Protests happen no matter what with or without marshals and organizers, because there is simply to many people who disapprove of whatever the protest is about.  What you suggest will lead to a riot, getting yourself and others hurt, and in the end, probably arrested too and labeled an agitator.


Of course I read the entire post. You are trying, but failing, to excuse irresponsible conduct.

In a life span that approaches 70 years I have seen and heard many protests. Most were a complete waste of everyone's time and effort. Nearly all in Canada, and most throughout North America and Western Europe since around 1960, involved self absorbed children acting out their (misunderstood) rage against Mommy and Daddy.

In recent years almost all protest involved unnecessary violence, the responsibility for which lies, nearly exclusively, with the children who "organized" them and then failed, miserably, to control what they organized because I suspect they are too immature to organize or control much of anything.

Either manage your protest - make it peaceful - or go home and play with your dolls.
 
mellian said:
  What you suggest will lead to a riot, getting yourself and others hurt, and in the end, probably arrested too and labeled an agitator.

So what you are saying is that you dont want the agitators there and dont invite them but that if they show up and cause trouble, you are content not doing anything about it.

Brilliant.
 
Loachman said:
Mellian and Marlborough: What precisely do you (want to) protest against, anyway?

G20 protest, I was more of educational curiousity and wanting to understand why such a protest happens, and the reasons behind it. Later protests, my motivations is to help keep the protests and those in it safe, especially after the mess I saw at G20 and read about in regards to Seattle and Quebec City. Gradually, stop my involvement from combination of realizing my views are not completely compatible, other things and issues rather focus on, life, maturity, and realize I am there more for the protest than the why. Now I am not involved for a couple of years now since I moved, apart from showing once in the while to a local demonstration marches. As I mentioned already, I have no plans presently of getting involved, especially if I am going to be in the CF.
 
mellian said:
G20 protest, I was more of educational curiousity and wanting to understand why such a protest happens, and the reasons behind it. Later protests, my motivations is to help keep the protests and those in it safe, especially after the mess I saw at G20 and read about in regards to Seattle and Quebec City. Gradually, stop my involvement from combination of realizing my views are not completely compatible, other things and issues rather focus on, life, maturity, and realize I am there more for the protest than the why. Now I am not involved for a couple of years now since I moved, apart from showing once in the while to a local demonstration marches. As I mentioned already, I have no plans presently of getting involved, especially if I am going to be in the CF.
I encourage you to respond to the last 3 or 4 posts. I am curious as to your answers.
 
mellian said:
G20 protest, I was more of educational curiousity and wanting to understand why such a protest happens, and the reasons behind it. Later protests, my motivations is to help keep the protests and those in it safe, especially after the mess I saw at G20 and read about in regards to Seattle and Quebec City. Gradually, stop my involvement from combination of realizing my views are not completely compatible, other things and issues rather focus on, life, maturity, and realize I am there more for the protest than the why. Now I am not involved for a couple of years now since I moved, apart from showing once in the while to a local demonstration marches. As I mentioned already, I have no plans presently of getting involved, especially if I am going to be in the CF.


You were in London and Pittsburgh for the G20 meetings? Why protest? What's the G20 doing wrong? It brings BRIC and LDCs into the conversation; what's wrong with that?

The G20 didn't meet in Seattle; that was the WTO - not even loosely related. Quite different issues.

And Québec? That was the Summit of the Americas, NAFTA, etc.

You understand the issues and problems, right?

Or were you just there because so many cool kids were breaking windows and harassing the police?
 
CDN Aviator said:
So what you are saying is that you dont want the agitators there and dont invite them but that if they show up and cause trouble, you are content not doing anything about it.

Brilliant.

What do you suggest civilians organizing and coordinating a protest do that won't ruin the peaceful cohesion of the larger group and their need to peacefully state their message?
 
mellian said:
What do you suggest civilians organizing and coordinating a protest do that won't ruin the peaceful cohesion of the larger group and their need to peacefully state their message?


Simple: If you can't manage, if you are not capable of controlling the event, then don't start it, stay home. Write letters. See? Simple.

 
A sternly worded letter to The Times is very unlikely to get you a face full of snot gas or a chunk of hickory jammed into your kidney.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top