Background
There are too many news stories I want to comment on, and not enough time. The one acquiring my attention this morning is:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/11/21/about-pepper-spray/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/bob-ostertag/uc-davis-protest_b_1103039.html
http://boingboing.net/2011/11/20/ucdeyetwitness.html
In short, a crowd of students from University of California Davis were protesting removal of funding for education. Whether you agree with the topic or not is not the point, unless you think police should have unrestricted power to decide which subjects should be covered by the right to exercise free speach, and which shouldn't, and can't see any potentially deleterious consequences of abrogating large swathes of discourse from the right to free speach, in a process with no consistency, oversight, recourse, or objectivity.
They were assembled in a public plaza in the university (intended to allow students to congregate, but university property). At first the chancellor of the university allowed them to do so (suspending a prohibition on camping) and then changed her mind, calling the police to evict them.
I believe (?) the occupation went on for at least a day and a night, with protestors and police chatting to each other, with no violence or intimidation of any kind from the protestors.
The students were delivered an ultimatum to remove their tents or be arrested. A letter from the university claimed there was a health and safety violation, but as far as I know didn't specify what, or whether the protestors had an obligation to fix it, or whether not doing so was an arrestable offense, or whether the police (who could and did step over the line of protestors) were in fact prevented from removing the tents themselves.
They decided to peacefully resist, and at the time when the police came spontaneously sat in a circle, hundled with linked arms, in a classic "peaceful resistance" policy. According to eyewitness accounts of protestors and statements from the university and police, what the protestors did do was:
1. Sit in a circle huddled on the ground with linked arms
2. Some time earlier, when the police first told them to move, one guy yelled "fuck the police" several times, but people didn't take the shout up.
3. After the incident, many people began several chants, including "SHAME ON YOU" and "WHO DO YOU PROTECT? WHO DO YOU SERVE"? and milled around in a manner which is marginally less passive than huddling on the ground, but (judging from the video) still not intimidating in any way whatsoever.
What they are not claimed to have done is:
1. Any act of violence whatsoever
2. Any intimidation
3. Any other insults (I can't confirm this, as apparently people were chanting loudly, but nothing specfic was claimed as a justification for the police feeling threatened in any way, and all the accounts I've seen stress that the protestors went out of their way not to do so)
4. Broken any laws (presumably they DID break some laws, but none of the statements by the police that I've seen have said so, let alone suggested which)
5. Had any weapons, even completely improvised ones.
6. Any abrupt act of any kind that, rightly or wrongly, might cause the police officers to respond without thinking.
At this point, one police officer says that they need to leave now or they will be shot, and then walks methodically down the line of students, pepper spraying each in the face. At least one covered his face with his shirt, and a police officer sprayed up under his shirt to make sure it got into his eyes and mouth.
Questions
Is "health and safety" violation a blanket legal permission to arrest anyone for any reason?
Do the public legally have an obligation to obey police instructions when those instructions have no legal justification? (Although obviously not doing so is dangerous.)
If people are gathered on someone else's land, not leaving, but obviously not threatening, is that an arrestable offense?
Is non-violent passive resistance a useful tool in societal protest that ought to be preserved?
Is sitting huddled on the ground not moving "violent" and if so, can you think of any form of anything whatsoever that is "non-violent"?
Should the police have the right to threaten and inflict intense pain and debilitation as a punitive measure, or only in self defence?
Is using painful and debilitating chemical agents as a punitve measure, especially without any sort of legal process, actually a contravention of the European Declaration of Human Rights, or not? (It apparently says "the term torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering...is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as ... punishing him for an act... or intimidating or coercing him". It stressed that "there are undeniable difficulties inherent in the fight against crime, particularly with regard to organised crime and terrorism...accepts that in the prosecution of such crime, certain exceptions to the rules of evidence and procedural rights can be permitted. However...The prohibition on resort to ill-treatment ...remains absolute". And notice that that's saying you shouldn't use extreme pain punitively even against terrorism and organised crime. It presumably thought it went without saying that you shouldn't use extreme pain punitively against peaceful, unarmed students exercising their legally protected rights to public assembly and free speech.)
Updates
Apparently several police officers have been suspended, and the chancellor is likely to resign. It actually probably wasn't the chancellor's fault: she may have been unwise in calling in riot police, but presumably didn't realise they were going to randomly torture innocent people. But she needs to hurriedly condemn the incident if she hasn't already, and not try to pretend it was ok.
There has in general been a public outcry, so maybe people actually did realise why this was bad, but I hope it's actually followed up on. The point being, people should have the right to peacefully protest things, because if you wait until there's something you really, really need to protest, it's too late. You need to keep the right, ready for whenever you need it. "Oh, we're only a tiny bit less free, I'm sure we don't need to worry now" is like saying "oh, the piano on the hill only moved a tiny bit, I'm sure we don't need to worry now". The bad consequences aren't now. Maybe it'll never go lower at all. But if it will go lower, it'll be many many times harder to stop it later.
One person wrote a very moving letter to other police officers saying "I know most of you are on our side and want to protect the public. Please know we love you and we're on your side if you can stand up against this sort of thing, even a little."
I feel stupid for talking about without knowing more about it, but wanted to post about it anyway :(
There are too many news stories I want to comment on, and not enough time. The one acquiring my attention this morning is:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/11/21/about-pepper-spray/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/bob-ostertag/uc-davis-protest_b_1103039.html
http://boingboing.net/2011/11/20/ucdeyetwitness.html
In short, a crowd of students from University of California Davis were protesting removal of funding for education. Whether you agree with the topic or not is not the point, unless you think police should have unrestricted power to decide which subjects should be covered by the right to exercise free speach, and which shouldn't, and can't see any potentially deleterious consequences of abrogating large swathes of discourse from the right to free speach, in a process with no consistency, oversight, recourse, or objectivity.
They were assembled in a public plaza in the university (intended to allow students to congregate, but university property). At first the chancellor of the university allowed them to do so (suspending a prohibition on camping) and then changed her mind, calling the police to evict them.
I believe (?) the occupation went on for at least a day and a night, with protestors and police chatting to each other, with no violence or intimidation of any kind from the protestors.
The students were delivered an ultimatum to remove their tents or be arrested. A letter from the university claimed there was a health and safety violation, but as far as I know didn't specify what, or whether the protestors had an obligation to fix it, or whether not doing so was an arrestable offense, or whether the police (who could and did step over the line of protestors) were in fact prevented from removing the tents themselves.
They decided to peacefully resist, and at the time when the police came spontaneously sat in a circle, hundled with linked arms, in a classic "peaceful resistance" policy. According to eyewitness accounts of protestors and statements from the university and police, what the protestors did do was:
1. Sit in a circle huddled on the ground with linked arms
2. Some time earlier, when the police first told them to move, one guy yelled "fuck the police" several times, but people didn't take the shout up.
3. After the incident, many people began several chants, including "SHAME ON YOU" and "WHO DO YOU PROTECT? WHO DO YOU SERVE"? and milled around in a manner which is marginally less passive than huddling on the ground, but (judging from the video) still not intimidating in any way whatsoever.
What they are not claimed to have done is:
1. Any act of violence whatsoever
2. Any intimidation
3. Any other insults (I can't confirm this, as apparently people were chanting loudly, but nothing specfic was claimed as a justification for the police feeling threatened in any way, and all the accounts I've seen stress that the protestors went out of their way not to do so)
4. Broken any laws (presumably they DID break some laws, but none of the statements by the police that I've seen have said so, let alone suggested which)
5. Had any weapons, even completely improvised ones.
6. Any abrupt act of any kind that, rightly or wrongly, might cause the police officers to respond without thinking.
At this point, one police officer says that they need to leave now or they will be shot, and then walks methodically down the line of students, pepper spraying each in the face. At least one covered his face with his shirt, and a police officer sprayed up under his shirt to make sure it got into his eyes and mouth.
Questions
Is "health and safety" violation a blanket legal permission to arrest anyone for any reason?
Do the public legally have an obligation to obey police instructions when those instructions have no legal justification? (Although obviously not doing so is dangerous.)
If people are gathered on someone else's land, not leaving, but obviously not threatening, is that an arrestable offense?
Is non-violent passive resistance a useful tool in societal protest that ought to be preserved?
Is sitting huddled on the ground not moving "violent" and if so, can you think of any form of anything whatsoever that is "non-violent"?
Should the police have the right to threaten and inflict intense pain and debilitation as a punitive measure, or only in self defence?
Is using painful and debilitating chemical agents as a punitve measure, especially without any sort of legal process, actually a contravention of the European Declaration of Human Rights, or not? (It apparently says "the term torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering...is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as ... punishing him for an act... or intimidating or coercing him". It stressed that "there are undeniable difficulties inherent in the fight against crime, particularly with regard to organised crime and terrorism...accepts that in the prosecution of such crime, certain exceptions to the rules of evidence and procedural rights can be permitted. However...The prohibition on resort to ill-treatment ...remains absolute". And notice that that's saying you shouldn't use extreme pain punitively even against terrorism and organised crime. It presumably thought it went without saying that you shouldn't use extreme pain punitively against peaceful, unarmed students exercising their legally protected rights to public assembly and free speech.)
Updates
Apparently several police officers have been suspended, and the chancellor is likely to resign. It actually probably wasn't the chancellor's fault: she may have been unwise in calling in riot police, but presumably didn't realise they were going to randomly torture innocent people. But she needs to hurriedly condemn the incident if she hasn't already, and not try to pretend it was ok.
There has in general been a public outcry, so maybe people actually did realise why this was bad, but I hope it's actually followed up on. The point being, people should have the right to peacefully protest things, because if you wait until there's something you really, really need to protest, it's too late. You need to keep the right, ready for whenever you need it. "Oh, we're only a tiny bit less free, I'm sure we don't need to worry now" is like saying "oh, the piano on the hill only moved a tiny bit, I'm sure we don't need to worry now". The bad consequences aren't now. Maybe it'll never go lower at all. But if it will go lower, it'll be many many times harder to stop it later.
One person wrote a very moving letter to other police officers saying "I know most of you are on our side and want to protect the public. Please know we love you and we're on your side if you can stand up against this sort of thing, even a little."
I feel stupid for talking about without knowing more about it, but wanted to post about it anyway :(