Yes, more on the “let’s use pepper spray on these kids sitting on the ground where we don’t want them to” story from UC Davis.
First thing that struck me just yesterday: these were apparently UC Davis police. Whut? O_õ Since when do universities have their own police?
And since when did they get paramilitary riot gear like that we have seen in all the footage and photographs?
Messed up.
Second thing was to read (in a number of places, but here it is quoted on the Daily Kos) that what was done is seen as “fairly standard police procedure”.
However, a law enforcement official who watched the clip called the use of force “fairly standard police procedure.”
…Charles J. Kelly, a former Baltimore Police Department lieutenant who wrote the department’s use of force guidelines, said pepper spray is a “compliance tool” that can be used on subjects who do not resist, and is preferable to simply lifting protesters.
“When you start picking up human bodies, you risk hurting them,” Kelly said. “Bodies don’t have handles on them.”
After reviewing the video, Kelly said he observed at least two cases of “active resistance” from protesters. In one instance, a woman pulls her arm back from an officer. In the second instance, a protester curls into a ball. Each of those actions could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques.
“What I’m looking at is fairly standard police procedure,” Kelly said.
Further, we read why the pepper spray was in fact necessary:
UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza said the decision to use pepper spray was made at the scene.
“The students had encircled the officers,” she said Saturday. “They needed to exit. They were looking to leave but were unable to get out.”
So, let me see if I have this correct… The police, wearing full riot gear and carrying guns (rubber bullets one presumes) were being cruelly threatened by these students who were menacingly sitting on the ground with their arms linked. Rather than push past them or pick them up and move them out of the way, which might have hurt them, the police – wanting to avoid causing any hurt – decided their best option was to Spray. Fucking. Pepper. Spray. Down. Their. Fucking. Throats.
Y’know, because if they’d lifted them out of the way they might have hurt them.
Just as well nobody lifted him off the ground and moved him.
And as for the notion of “active resistance”, two things:
First: pulling away one’s arm? Curling into a ball? These are instances of “active resistance”? – Which is such a bad thing that it warrants being sprayed in the face with military-grade (reportedly) pepper spray?
Second: so the frak what? So we the people should not resist? Ever? If someone in a uniform tells us to do something it should be an automatic “yes sir no sir three bags frakking full sir”? Screw what you believe in. Screw what is right. If those in power tell you what to do you do it.
Or you get pepper-sprayed in the face.
An excellent article in Salon looks at the roots of the UC-Davis pepper-spraying. One of the points Glenn Greenwald makes in that article is that:
“If a population becomes bullied or intimidated out of exercising rights offered on paper, those rights effectively cease to exist.”
It becomes meaningless to guarantee rights to assemble, and to voice dissent, when to do so means suffering this sort of violent abuse.
So I say: Disobey. Resist. Do not comply.
Sure, don’t go out of your way to do meaningless acts of vandalism or violence or antisocial wossname, but do not kow-tow to those in power. The power structures that feed them were created for a reason, and that reason is was to serve the people. There has been such a perversion of these institutions that clearly, they do not any longer serve that purpose.
If what you are doing is right, keep doing it. Do not comply if told to stop. Resist (peacefully) if your compliance is being forced.
Do not obey.
Naughty Twitter Trolls
At the outset I should admit: I have paid only scant attention to the details of the recent ermahgerd twitteh trerlls thing wherein a footballer was so incensed by (apparently actually unpleasant and really pretty shitty) messages sent to him on twitter that he has made appeals to the Gummint to find out who it was being so nasty to him, so that they may be punished.
However… Srsly?
We even now have Senator Conroy lambasting Twitter for "treating Australian law with contempt". Rly?
Yes. Really. Because they aren't keen to hand over identifying details of someone who sent nasty offensive messages to someone else. Since when
isshould a person's taking of offence be any business of police or government? Even if what was said (tweeted) was really terrible, if it wasn't a threat or incitement to violence or similar, then why should authorities be involved? Taking offence doesn't mean you deserve to be protected from whoever you took offence to. It just means you feel offended (which is a pretty useless construct IMO; as much as I admit to not being completely immune to it, I don't think it's ever proved useful).I think Stephen Fry put it perfectly:
I totally agree that a cry of being offended by something has "no reason to be respected". Certainly not to the point of police and Gummint trying to track down the person who said whatever was taken as offensive. Sure, I am not meaning to excuse unpleasant and hurtful things being slung at anybody, but this? This is stupid.
You will note also, that I am bending language rather unpleasantly to make it clear that it is not the naughty troll who gives offence, but rather the offended party who takes offence. Foolishness.
… But I'm also thinking that – seen in the light of the increasingly Orwellian nature of our societies – there's a disturbing side to it as well.