Hands Off Gaza Protest, Sat 3 Jan

[_float_]

I imagine the police were there because it was their job to protect the Israeli Embassy from damage and its occupants from violence. The police are empowered to use force in the course of their duty. On the other hand, protesters are not empowered to use violence in the furtherance of their aims and will likely meet a robust police response if they do.

The police are required by law to have grounds to use reasonable force. They are not premitted to use it randomly, excessively or unneccessarily.

Members of the public (ie anyone) are allowed by law to use reasonable force to defend themselves if necessary.

Quite rightly.

Presumably to the answer to "Were you there?" is "No, I was not there".

 

[untethered]

The police are required by law to have grounds to use reasonable force. They are not premitted to use it randomly, excessively or unneccessarily.

True. I imagine thousands of protesters illegally trying to break into the sovereign embassy of another state is sufficient justification to resort to force.

Unless you know better, of course.

Members of the public (ie anyone) are allowed by law to use reasonable force to defend themselves if necessary.

And "necessary" includes in this case taking the option to flee where it is available. That hardly seems to be supported by the quotation from someone who was there about "pushing through barriers" and "exchanging missiles".

Presumably to the answer to "Were you there?" is "No, I was not there".

No, I wasn't there. Your point is what?

 

[_float_]

I support the rule of law. People have a right to protest peacefully and lawfully, but not to attack embassies and the police. I will defend their right to the former, and the police's action against the latter.

Will you also speak out against the police if they use unneccesary and excessive violence? Will you defend people's universal right to self defence? Or are you just chucking in politically-motivated and/or provocative comments on this and similar threads?

 

[kavenism]

I should add that it was good natured until the police pulled out their shields and batons and came right up face to face with the protestors, and also once the barriers were breached all we did was carry on chanting at the embassy, we were not just facing the police. I'm pretty horse after all the singing I did today.

I have always found mass singing to be supremely emancipating activity, even more so when doing it in the freezing cold in front of riot piggies, the glare of blue neon cutting through the moonlight and the scent of burning flag hanging heavy in the air.

 

[untethered]

Will you also speak out against the police if they use unneccesary and excessive violence?

I have done so on many occasions.

Will you defend people's universal right to self defence?

People don't have a "universal" right to self defence. They have the right to defend themselves under very specific circumstances.

Or are you just chucking in politically-motivated and/or provocative comments on this and similar threads?

It's not politically motivated. If the law is important, uphold it. If violence is wrong, don't practice it. If you believe in democracy, act democratically rather than like a gang of thugs.

 

[Bakunin]

I'm very familiar with it, yes. Surely the problem there was that the police were breaking the law rather than upholding it?

I hardly see the connection between that and today's events at the embassy.



You couldn't be more wrong. The law is all that stands between you and any arbitrary group of thugs that want to make your life a misery, and that sometimes includes some police.



While that may sometimes be the case, do you think the police should have let the protesters run riot through the Israeli Embassy?

Events like the Battle of The Beanfield aren't exactly unusual for your beloved plod you know. That's just one example of plod running wild, and with the direct connivance of the State as well.

As far as I'm concerned, and based on personal first hand experience of watching them at work, plod can become a arbitrary group of thugs just as easily as anyone else. Which is one of the many reasons why I have absolutely no time whatsoever for them, as a general rule.

And I would have applauded if they'd trashed the Israeli Embassy, since you asked. It would have been a perfect way to show the Israeli Government the depth of feeling that exists against the frankly medieval (and illegal under international law) collective punishments, State terrorism and virtual (if not actual) apartheid that exists in the Occupied Territories at this time.

 

[_float_]

You couldn't be more wrong. The law is all that stands between you and any arbitrary group of thugs that want to make your life a misery, and that sometimes includes some police.

Maybe in theory it is, but in real life actual physical self-defence will help you avoid injury rather than invoking legal texts.

 

[untethered]

Events like the Battle of The Beanfield aren't exactly unusual for your beloved plod you know. That's just one example of plod running wild, and with the direct connivance of the State as well.

I'm well aware that the generally good record of the police is tarnished by various relatively rare excesses.

As far as I'm concerned, and based on personal first hand experience of watching them at work, plod can become a arbitrary group of thugs just as easily as anyone else. Which is one of the many reasons why I have absolutely no time whatsoever for them, as a general rule.

In which case you have little grounds to oppose their lawbreaking except as an incredibly cynical tactic.

How about actually supporting the rule of law, for the police as well as everyone else?

And I would have applauded if they'd trashed the Israeli Embassy, since you asked.

Because we all know that two wrongs make things right and that the best way to bring about peace is to escalate the level of violence.

 

[untethered]

Maybe in theory it is, but in real life actual physical self-defence will help you avoid injury rather than invoking legal texts.

Throwing things at the police and charging their lines is a pretty bizarre way of performing self-defence, and almost certainly wouldn't accord with any legal concept of the term.

 

[_float_]

No, I wasn't there. Your point is what?

My point is that you are making your mind up about events that you didn't witness and which you have hardly any information.

I am guessing that *some* of the police actions were justified, but that maybe they also used excessive and unneccessary force as well.

I am guessing that *some* of the protestors were acting 100% within the law, but that others were going beyond it.

What I am sure about is that your puffed up pontificating about - and scolding of protestors - is based on not very much hard evidence at all, and seems like you are just point scoring for political or amusement purposes rather than trying to have a grown up and honest discussion.

 

[_float_]

I have done so on many occasions.

Have you ever done so on u75?

Done so recently?

Or are you yet another youthful radical who has turned into sour, disillusioned, reactionary middle-aged grump?

 

[kavenism]

I did not witness a single occurance of the protesters charging the police, we pushed down the barriers to get closer to the embassy and the police backed off, they had big sticks and we were not making it our business to run towards them!! And in the end they came through on horses!

 

[untethered]

My point is that you are making your mind up about events that you didn't witness and which you have hardly any information.

Sorry, I only have one account of unlawful violence by the free admission of one of the protesters to work from.

Perhaps someone would like to post something from the police's perspective.

I am guessing that *some* of the police actions were justified, but that maybe they also used excessive and unneccessary force as well.

If violence bothers you, the key surely is not to give them any excuse.

I am guessing that *some* of the protestors were acting 100% within the law, but that others were going beyond it.

I'm sure that the protesters that didn't offer violence (no doubt there were many) stayed within the law but those that were violent didn't. It would be very hard to claim self defence in this situation for throwing missiles at the police. Hardly a defensive action.

What I am sure about is that your puffed up pontificating about - and scolding of protestors - is based on not very much hard evidence at all, and seems like you are just point scoring for political or amusement purposes rather than trying to have a grown up and honest discussion.

I'm just fed up with the violence, lawlessness and hypocrisy among some people that claim to be advancing the cause of peace and international law.

 

[Bakunin]

I'm well aware that the generally good record of the police is tarnished by various relatively rare excesses.



In which case you have little grounds to oppose their lawbreaking except as an incredibly cynical tactic.

How about actually supporting the rule of law, for the police as well as everyone else?



Because we all know that two wrongs make things right and that the best way to bring about peace is to escalate the level of violence.

Relatively rare, my arse. Excesses are perfectly common in so-called 'public order' policing, as they were at Kingsnorth in August. It's also perfectly common for plod to tell the press and public barefaced lies in order to try and justify such excesses.

I have every right to oppose what's being perpetrated by the Israeli Government and armed forces. The UN certainly isn't too happy about the Israeli 'excesses' in the Occupied Territories, but as that's a largely toothless organisation that often leaves it to those who care to try and defend the Palestinians and support them as best we can.

And I support justice, not that corrupt institution you call 'the law'. It's the corrupt institution you call 'the law' that exists to protect political and corporate interests, not those of ordinary people. When plod decide to have a moment without arch hypocrisy and actually obey the laws they are supposed to enforce, then I might give them house room. Until then, no chance.

If the Israeli Embassy had been wrecked, then it would have been headline news around the world. Nobody could have ignored a statement like that and I say it would have been a statement worth making.

 

[_float_]

People don't have a "universal" right to self defence. They have the right to defend themselves under very specific circumstances.

OK professor brainbox...

...please tell us in what circumstances people do *not* have a right to self defence.

 

[_float_]

If the law is important, uphold it. If violence is wrong, don't practice it. If you believe in democracy, act democratically rather than like a gang of thugs.

This is fatuous, meaningless verbiage:

"law" in general may be important (eg laws against rape and murder) but other laws may be unjust (eg apartheid). Arguing that to value *any* law you must support *all* laws is a nonsensical argument.

"violence" may be wrong, but again to argue that you must therefore be a pacifist in all situations is nonsensical.

Ditto "democracy".

You are either trolling or you are a moron, because you are making no effort whatsoever to set forward any intelligent statements.

 

[untethered]

OK professor brainbox...

...please tell us in what circumstances people do *not* have a right to self defence.

To start with they are not empowered to resist lawful force. If a police officer is arresting you or otherwise acting within his duty you do not have a right to resist.

Self defence needs to be proportionate and immediately necessary. What constitutes proportionality is assessed in each individual case. I'm sure you understand the general concept.

"Immediately necessary" self-defence implies that it must be given in the heat of the moment when there is a clear and continuing danger. If you have an opportunity to flee the situation, you should do so rather than returning violence to an attacker.

 

[frogwoman]

Relatively rare, my arse. Excesses are perfectly common in so-called 'public order' policing, as they were at Kingsnorth in August. It's also perfectly common for plod to tell the press and public barefaced lies in order to try and justify such excesses.

I have every right to oppose what's being perpetrated by the Israeli Government and armed forces. The UN certainly isn't too happy about the Israeli 'excesses' in the Occupied Territories, but as that's a largely toothless organisation that often leaves it to those who care to try and defend the Palestinians and support them as best we can.

And I support justice, not that corrupt institution you call 'the law'. It's the corrupt institution you call 'the law' that exists to protect political and corporate interests, not those of ordinary people. When plod decide to have a moment without arch hypocrisy and actually obey the laws they are supposed to enforce, then I might give them house room. Until then, no chance.

If the Israeli Embassy had been wrecked, then it would have been headline news around the world. Nobody could have ignored a statement like that and I say it would have been a statement worth making.

good post - and i don't nornmally support violence on demos. What would have been awesome would be if protesters occupied the Israeli Embassy and replaced the Israeli flag with a Palestinian one

 

[Bakunin]

To start with they are not empowered to resist lawful force. If a police officer is arresting you or otherwise acting within his duty you do not have a right to resist.

Self defence needs to be proportionate and immediately necessary. What constitutes proportionality is assessed in each individual case. I'm sure you understand the general concept.

"Immediately necessary" self-defence implies that it must be given in the heat of the moment when there is a clear and continuing danger. If you have an opportunity to flee the situation, you should do so rather than returning violence to an attacker.

So it's perfectly OK for plod to ride through a densely packed mass of people on their horses, whacking them over the head with clubs as they go and then administer further beatings, joint locks and chokeholds to those who are either unable or unwilling to flee, is it?

Fuck that for a laugh. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If plod want to be violent and politically motivated thugs, then why should they remain free of some payback for that?

 

[untethered]

"law" in general may be important (eg laws against rape and murder) but other laws may be unjust (eg apartheid). Arguing that value *any* law you must support *all* laws is a nonsensical argument.

And in this particular case do you think it justified to allow an assault on a foreign embassy in a city far distant from a conflict between third parties?

"violence" may be wrong, but again to argue that you must therefore be a pacifist in all situations is nonsensical.

I'd agree with that. Violence is sometimes necessary. I can think of no situation in this country at present where someone would be justified to use unlawful violence. Can you?

Ditto "democracy".

You are either trolling or you are a moron, because you are making no effort whatsoever to set forward any intelligent statements.

Sorry, I should have couched all these terms with numerous caveats about marginal extreme cases.

I'll try harder in future to be more pedantic.

 

[kavenism]

To start with they are not empowered to resist lawful force. If a police officer is arresting you or otherwise acting within his duty you do not have a right to resist.

Self defence needs to be proportionate and immediately necessary. What constitutes proportionality is assessed in each individual case. I'm sure you understand the general concept.

"Immediately necessary" self-defence implies that it must be given in the heat of the moment when there is a clear and continuing danger. If you have an opportunity to flee the situation, you should do so rather than returning violence to an attacker.

The ethical Good does not reside with the agents of state who are protecting the property (rented) of the murderers of innocents in Gaza. We the protesters through our mass endeavour actualise the ethical Good against imperialist and capitalistic ideology, our cause is above any contingent state law, it is the very stuff of radical democracy.

 

[untethered]

So it's perfectly OK for plod to ride through a densely packed mass of people on their horses, whacking them over the head with clubs as they go and then administer further beatings, joint locks and chokeholds to those who are either unable or unwilling to flee, is it?

You'd have to take each case on its merits but on the face of it and in the circumstances of today's demo, yes.

F- that for a laugh. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If plod want to be violent and politically motivated thugs, then why should they remain free of some payback for that?

I expect the police would defend any embassy similarly. I can see no political motivation here.

 

[untethered]

The ethical Good does not reside with the agents of state who are protecting the property (rented) of the murderers of innocents in Gaza. We the protesters through our mass endeavour actualise the ethical Good against imperialist and capitalistic ideology, our cause is above any contingent state law, it is the very stuff of radical democracy.

That's a very moving statement. Shame you can't see you've already become the thing you oppose.

 

[_float_]

I'm just fed up with the violence, lawlessness and hypocrisy among some people that claim to be advancing the cause of peace and international law.

Fine, and you seem to be against "violence, lawlessness and hypocrisy among some people that claim to be policing London".

Have you got any messages for the other protestors who were non-violent?

Have you got any messages for the police who used excessive and unneccesary force?

What about a message for protestors who aren't hypocrites because they have never made a statement about pacifism or law - who are just pissed off about a specific action and were expressing this pissed-off-ness?

You seem to be making some very sweeping assumptions about all the people who were involved in the demonstrations today - about what they actually did today and about what they think and believe generally.

 

[kavenism]

That's a very moving statement. Shame you can't see you've already become the thing you oppose.

Perhaps you could try a proper argument to support that statement?

 

[untethered]

Have you got any messages for the other protestors who were non-violent?

No more so than I have for anyone else that went about their lawful business today, shopping, gardening, attending church, whatever.

Have you got any messages for the police who used excessive and unneccesary force?

You presume that any of them did. I have yet to see any credible evidence that it was so.

What about a message for protestors who aren't hypocrites because they have never made a statement about pacifism or law - who are just p- off about a specific action and were expressing this p-off-ness?

Anyone that breaks the law and uses unlawful violence will meet my condemnation whether that's their manifesto or otherwise.

You seem to be making some very sweeping assumptions about all the people who were involved in the demonstrations today - about what they actually did today and about what they think and believe generally.

I'm grateful for the opportunity you've offered to put the record straight.

 

[_float_]

To start with they are not empowered to resist lawful force. If a police officer is arresting you or otherwise acting within his duty you do not have a right to resist.

Self defence needs to be proportionate and immediately necessary. What constitutes proportionality is assessed in each individual case. I'm sure you understand the general concept.

"Immediately necessary" self-defence implies that it must be given in the heat of the moment when there is a clear and continuing danger. If you have an opportunity to flee the situation, you should do so rather than returning violence to an attacker.

You haven't provided any examples of a situation where someone doesn't have a right to self defence.

 

[Bakunin]

You'd have to take each case on its merits but on the face of it and in the circumstances of today's demo, yes.



I expect the police would defend any embassy similarly. I can see no political motivation here.

You are scum, scum.

You're utterly blind, then, if you can't see the political motivation behind thise action. And I'll say it again, this action would have been even better if it had ended with a trashed Israeli Embassy with a Palestinian flag hanging from it.

 

[untethered]

You haven't provided any examples of a situation where someone doesn't have a right to self defence.

I think I've supplied sufficient information for an intelligent person to be able to discriminate between lawful and unlawful self-defence.

 

[untethered]

You are scum, scum.

And you are incredibly rude.

You're utterly blind, then, if you can't see the political motivation behind thise action. And I'll say it again, this action would have been even better if it had ended with a trashed Israeli Embassy with a Palestinian flag hanging from it.

And had the police allowed this to happen, nothing could have been a clearer indication of political partiality on their part.

As it happened, the police upheld the law and defended the embassy as they are required to do with anyone else's lives and property.

I take it you do realise the building is occupied?