Remember - just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not out to get you...
Posted by Ian Bertram on January 27, 2013 at 12:02 PM in Current Affairs, Film and TV, Human Rights, Politics, Reclaim the State | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
|
|
The government says it will 'permit' the marriage of same sex couples in churches and synagogues etc except for the established Church of England and for some reason the Church of Wales which was disestablished in 1920. Apparently those two bodies are against the idea so they are going to be forbidden to do it. Strange logic don't you think?
If the CofE are against the idea why do they need to be forbidden? Why forbod the Church of Wales when it isn't even an established church? More to the point though, is this really an equality issue or is it about freedom? Chris Dillow suggests the latter:
Think of it this way. Over a very wide domain, the state already takes no interest in my choice of marriage partners. It is indifferent to their age (subject only to age of consent laws), ethnicity, psychological compatibility or appearance. Why, then, should it care about the contents of their trousers? Viewed in this frame, permitting gay marriage merely expands the range of characteristics of my marriage partners about which the state doesn't care. It's a small step to greater freedom. We could rename "equal marriage" as "free marriage."
I think he's right. Making this an issue of equal rights allows all the old nonsense about 'political correctness' to be trotted out by the right wing dinosaurs of the right. The left by accepting this framing of the issue have lost the chance to re-attach themselves to the idea of freedom and so handed yet another stick to the right with which they can be beaten. Chris Dillow again:
So, why is the issue so often framed as one of equality rather than freedom? I suspect conservatives have an instinctive aversion to gay marriage, and prefer to rationalize this as a big issue of equality rather a small issue of freedom, because they feel more comfortable opposing equality than opposing freedom. Conversely, campaigners for legalizing gay marriage - being mostly on the left - feel more comfortable with talk of equality.
Much opposition to the idea of gay marriages is based on the false premise that 'allowing' it gives the state the right to enforce it. They are wrong - it isn't for the state to force, allow or even enable gay marriage in churches. It should simply be something in which they take no interest - which should of course also apply to the CofE itself. Disestablishment would itself be a step towards greater freedom.
Posted by Ian Bertram on December 19, 2012 at 05:11 PM in Human Rights, Reclaim the State, Religion | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
|
|
The proposal by South Yorkshire Police Authority to replace police on the beat with PCSOs as the first point of contact with the public is interesting for a variety of reasons. It was of course suggested that this would happen when PCSOs were introduced some 10 years ago. It is surprising perhaps it has taken this long. However the very idea of a separate 'public' cuts against the traditional philosophy of policing in the UK as set out in Peel's Principles of Policing, #7 of which says:
Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
A Police Federation spokesman, interviewed on BBC R4 'Today' programme this morning described PCSOs as 'civilians', thus creating a definite sense of us and them. It seems that the modern pattern of policing, supported by police and politicians alike, has abandoned Peel in favour of the idea of an occupying force, keeping down a hostile populace.
That shift of perspective is dangerous. See for example Principles 2, 3 and 4:
Principle #2: The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
Principle #3: Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
Principle #4: The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
The more the Police consider themselves outside and above the general public, the worse it will get.
Posted by Ian Bertram on April 13, 2012 at 05:13 PM in Current Affairs, Human Rights, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
|
|
A client of ours -- a small, not-for-profit, economic justice organization [EJO] -- used social network analysis [SNA] to assist their city attorney in convicting a group of "slumlords" of various housing violations that the real estate investors had been side-stepping for years. The housing violations, in multiple buildings, included:
Posted by Ian Bertram on January 07, 2012 at 11:50 AM in Community Regeneration, Human Rights, Reclaim the State | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
|
|
Image via Wikipedia
Scott Crow. Black Flags and Windmills: Hope, Anarchy, and the Common Ground Collective (PM Press, 2011).
I’m writing a book about how networked communications enable self-organized groups to take on functions that once (supposedly) required large, hierarchical, capital-intensive institutions. One of the functions I’m examining is disaster relief. I recall, from the very outset of Katrina, reading about how the agencies offifically tasked with aiding the victims of that disaster were actually treating them as the enemy: putting NOLA under lockdown, turning refugees attempting to flee the city back at gunpoint, turning would-be volunteers and helpers away at gunpoing, and suppressing self-organized groups in the city as if they were criminal gangs. So when I was invited to read and review an anarchist’s account of those events, I jumped at the chance.
Just reading Crow’s story of his formative years, I get the impression that he got a dose of AUM Shiva in the uterus and was born a homo neophilus. Or maybe he was just raised by one. (If you’re not familiar with R.A. Wilson, Google is your friend.) Scott was raised in the class conventionally referred to as the “working poor” in Texas, watching his mother and her family struggling to get by. He also grew up on the fringes of the radical movement, with anecdotes about a mother who enthusiastically called him to watch Greepeace activists fighting off a Japanese whaling ship on TV and attending a Black Panthers preschool. As a young man, he frequented left-wing and anarchist circles of Dallas and Austin (Gene Atkins of the I.W.W. was a mentor), along with the punk scene.
Image AP
After Katrina hit, Crow organized an expedition into New Orleans to extract his old comrade Robert King, who had gone incommunicado (with all the obvious implications under those circumstances). And afterward, as a part of their rescue efforts Crow and his comrades organized the Common Ground Collective. Crow’s experiences in NOLA — especially with FEMA, the military, and state and local cops — bear out every single thing you’ve heard about official authoritarianism after Katrina. Not only did the “authorities” treat the poor black population as an occupied enemy and keep them under lockdown, not only did they shoot people on sight for “looting” food and water that would be written off as unsalvageable anyway; they also turned a blind eye to the operation of white death squads terrorizing the area and shooting unarmed civilians.
The objective was pretty clearly to ethnically cleanse the poorest neighborhoods, to drive the black population from their surviving homes to the kind ministrations of the Superdome, in order to have a free hand reconstructing the city. The real estate developers and Chamber of Commerce saw Katrina as a golden opportunity to carry out the biggest urban renewal/gentrification project in history, once they were freed from interference by the people who, you know, actually lived there. They’d bulldoze most of the Lower Ninth, lure in lots of corporate headquarters, and turn NOLA into Seattle with a French Quarter. At the time Jimmy Reiss, chairman of the New Orleans Business Council, announced he’d been brainstorming about how “to use this catastrophe as a once-in-an-eon opportunity to change the dynamic.”
As Crow and his comrades went door to door, asking shut-ins about their needs and distributing food and water to enable them to stay in their homes,
[s]tate workers told us off the record that we weren’t supposed to exist. This area was supposed to be empty. It seemed that they wanted to starve out or remove the remaining residents. But our small-scale insurrection had disrrupted their plans. People wanted to stay in their homes and face whatever was going to come their way. They had all heard the stories from the Superdome and kew that friends and families were being shipped to unknown parts of the country. The government’s agenda was simple: clear the area of people by force or starvation.
Even when the motivation was not obviously corrupt, the bureaucracy was just plain paralyzed by its own internal culture. FEMA turned away hundreds of would-be volunteer rescuers, attempting to go in with their own boats, simply because it didn’t know what to do with them. Military forces composed largely of Iraq veterans had the combat mindset, approaching the local population the same way they did the populations they dealt with patrolling Baghdad. Military helicopters that could have lowered ropes and evacuated countless refugees instead trained their weapons on the people below, ready to shoot anything that moved.
Local police, seeing Common Ground aid workers moving on the streets, frequently gave them the standard “Get down — hands on your fucking heads!” treatment. As always with the state, regardless of its “Officer Friendly” rhetoric, you’re not the customer — at best you’re the commodity, at worst the enemy.
Image AP
Even when the official apparatus made sincere attempts at rescue and relief, it displayed the high-overhead operational style and enormous tail-to-tooth ratio typical of bureaucratic hierarchies. When a military battalion began relief efforts, its Humvees drove up and down streets with loudspeakers announcing their attention to put tarps on the roofs of anyone who needed them. After driving around for two days blasting out this message, they spent a grand total of two hours putting up five tarps. The Common Ground crews Crow worked with, in the meantime, worked from dawn to dusk every day tarping roofs, and worked eighteen-hour days cleaning out blocked sewer drains, removing downed trees from streets and rooftops, etc.. The military’s first aid clinic was open two hours a day, two hours a week.
As in the case of Mexico City in 1985, Crow says, the state “prioritized a return to law and order and minimizing negative media coverage instead of using its resources to get people to safety.”
As someone who’s followed the Arab Spring and Occupy movements very closely, I find Crow’s account of organizing the Common Ground Collective extremely relevant to the problems the movement faces today.
I took out some crude notes composed over the last few days and painted a picture of how we could build a revolutionary aid organization. It would be based on the principles and practices of other groups: an organization of residents and outside volunteers with support from larger civil society, one that engaged in aid work without government interference…. I knew we could do better than the bloated bureaucracies of the government and the Red Cross. We would take mutual aid from street to street, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, through the flooded city and beyond.
We agreed on some goals. First, extablishing security and checking in again with the closest neighbors about immediate needs. Next, establishing first aid and food distribution stations…. My hope was that we would build survival programs and resistance from the ground up with members of the surrounding communities and the ad hoc solidarity networks that we had access to around the country….
As our conversation continued, I drew up a proposal on a scrap of paper for a framework based on dual power. We would resist any further annihilation of the community. We would also work together to create counter-institutions for the long-term….
On September 5, 2005…, Malik, Sharon and I cofounded the Common Ground Collective…. Those who assme power would not be able to turn their eyes away or cover up what was happening. We would show their illegitimacy by “doin’ for ourselves,” as Malik said. While they waged wars and built prisons, we would aid people until they could get their footing and do it for themselves….
We were seeing, in real time, what slowly filtered out to become painfully apparent worldwide. The state was off balance and unresponsive. The entities within it were failing to grasp the developing issues…. For me, it was the closest thing to seeing those in Power lose their stranglehold on control. We interpreted this as an opportunity to create an autonomous space where residents could establish self-determination over their futures, be treated with dignity and respect, and have access to basic services that hadn’t existed in years, if ever. We would begin relief work, without reliance on or interference from the state or professional aid agencies. We would prefigure the civil society we would like to see in the future.
Common Ground — “the largest functioning organization based on anarchist ideals in the United States since the IWW” — continued to operate in the Ninth Ward until 2008.
Crow saw this prefigurative movement as a further development of the principles of horizontalism displayed in the Zapatista movement and the Seattle anti-globalization movement.
In the ten years since then, there has been a huge growth in networked and decentralized groups, projects and programs rooted in horizontal and cooperative models of organizing. Many of these groups took direct action. They organized shutdowns of institutions that were doing harmful things, started community gardens, fed people, created alternative media outlets, and formed cooperatives to share the work and benefits. These disparate projects had been drawn together by the common goal of creating new worlds from below, worlds where those who are historically neglected and their allies pulled together in solidarity for the benefit of everyone….
These networks of support include medics, legal aid, food, and housing, provided by community organizers and activists from all over, even across national borders. Networks allow groups to cross over, intersect, and overlap but keep their autonomy and connection to others with common purpose without leaders or parties dictating from the center. They converge to create temporary autonomous zones….
Our engagement was going to be built upon these many networks. Many projects and ideas like these had blossomed within the last ten years. I wanted to build on these ideas to make them more permanent. Could street medics and their temporary first aid stations become a permanent clinic or hospital? Could groups who served food once a week set up long-standing free kitchens? Would we be able through alternative media… to tell the deeper untold stories that countered mass-media sensationalized hype?
The Black Panther Party’s model of dual power in the ’60s and ’70s, as described by Crow, is especially relevant as a model of what the Occupy movement might become. As I have argued many times, Occupy is mainly significant not as a pressure movement on the state, but as a fair or school for organizing our own society independent of the state.
Their analysis and the broad social programs they built in the most oppressed communities reverberated throughout the neighborhood I lived in decades after they were gone…. The Panthers’ model tried to address the myriad issues in an integral way by feeding people, defending communities from police brutality, offering education, and providing basic health care. With these first steps, people could get a footing and become their own agents of change….
Early in its existence, the BPP developed survival programs. These programs were free services to their communities: breakfast for children, grocery and clothing giveaways, legal aid, sickle cell anemia testing, martial arts, medical clinics and ambulance services, pest control, education, child development centers, prisoner and prisoner family support, and more….
What frightened the state so much about the programs run by Panthers? It was that they advocated that people take power into their own hands through food programs, educating themselves, and defending their communities from police assaults and harassment.
My hope for OWS is that it will lead to similar horizontal linkages between open-source and free culture, Permaculture and community-supported agriculture, hackerspaces and micromanufacturing, community gardens, Food not Bombs, free clinics, Copwatch, Indymedia, and alternative currencies.
As someone who has written much — and feels driven to write a lot more — about the sheer stupidity of authority-based rules interfering with the judgment of people in contact with a situation, I especially appreciated these comments by Crow:
How many times have we all done something that was technically illegal, even something small, like walking at a crosswalk when the light is red? We do things like this because we have all the relevant information and make a decision that is in our best judgment….
I have come to trust that any group of people can decide what is best for them in any situation…. This can be done without hurting others, or waiting for someone far away with no firsthand knowledge of the issues to make the decision for them. All my life I have found that people can be accountable to themselves and to each other without coercion at every step.
As a market anarchist, I also appreciated crow’s account of a libertarian — as opposed to capitalist — market, embedded in the larger social life of a solidaristic community.
Individual action gains strength when it is undertaken in tandem with others for the benefit of everyone. Anarchism means acting cooperatively for the benefit of all, as well as our own self-interest. These motivations do not have to be mutually exclusive. I spent many years in the antique business. It is largely a cash economy, built on mutual trust and cooperation between people, based solely on their word. There are no lawyers or written contracts. Your word is everything. Most of my business decisions were collaborative in some way. They took into account my interests and those of the people I was doing business with. There was more to the equation than the profit motive. There were multiple bottom lines that included fairness and ethics in an economy based on mutual trust across informal networks. I made business deals across the world on handshake agreements that were reciprocally beneficial and supportive.
Many readers of this review will be familiar with Chuck Munson of Infoshop. Crow gives special credit to Infoshop for serving as a clearinghouse of news from New Orleans on anarchist relief activity in the early days after Katrina, and the problems anarchist mutual aid workers had in dealing with the state. I myself recall that a large amount of the anarchist news I received in the aftermath of Katrina had been forwarded by Infoshop. Indymedia was an important source of alternative news as well, Crow says. Thanks to the possibilities of networked journalism online, it’s possible for anyone who wants to to know what’s really going on, without depending on the “professional” gatekeepers at a handful of TV networks and wire services in the corporate-state media complex.
I especially like Crow’s statement, in response to local officials’ fear that Common Ground was “trying to overthrow the government, that
[w]e never aimed to take state power…. We neither needed nor wanted to overthrow their power…. We needed to build our own power as an organization if we were going to support people.
Exactly. Our aim is not to overthrow the state, but to ignore it. Anyone who wants to continue to support the state and obey its laws is free to do so, so long as they leave us alone. Our goal is to build the kind of society we want, and prevent the state from overthrowing us while we’re doing it. The last person out of the state can turn off the lights.
Reblogged from Centre for a Stateless Society.
Posted by Ian Bertram on December 21, 2011 at 12:28 PM in Human Rights, Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
|
|
The story of a woman who almost died in hospital after a doctor supposed to be looking after her refused to provide the treatment she needed.
Posted by Ian Bertram on May 29, 2011 at 08:14 PM in Health, Human Rights | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
|
|
In press commentary on the recent events in Egypt, there were frequent expressions of concern that Egypt might be falling into “anarchy.” “Anarchy,” in conventional journalistic usage, means chaos, disorder, and bloodshed — a Hobbesian war of all against all — that occurs when the stabilizing hand of government is removed. “Anarchy” is the agenda of mobs of kids in black circle-A t-shirts, smashing windows and setting stuff on fire.
But “anarchy,” as the term is understood by anarchists, is a form of society in which the state is replaced by the management of all human affairs through voluntary associations. Paul Goodman argued that it was impossible, through violence, to impose an anarchistic order on society, or to achieve a free society by replacing an old order with a new one. Rather, a free society results from “the extension of spheres of free action until they make up most of the social life.” Or to quote Gustav Landauer: “The State is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently toward one another… We are the State and we shall continue to be the State until we have created the institutions that form a real community.”
And we saw a great deal of anarchy in Egypt in recent days, in that sense. The people of Egypt have made a great start towards extending the spheres of free action, contracting new kinds of relationships between human beings, and creating the institutional basis of a real community.
Despite the poice state’s attempts to promote religious dissension and divide the opposition, Coptic Christians have stood watch over Muslims during their daily times of prayer. Muslims, likewise, guarded the perimeter of Liberation Square during a Coptic mass.
The resistance organized patrols to safeguard shops and museums from looting, and to watch over neighborhoods from which the security forces had been withdrawn. Meanwhile, as it turned out, most of the actions of violence and looting were false flag operations, carried out by security forces posing as protestors. So the functionaries of the state were the actual sources of violence and disorder; law and order emerged from anarchy — that is, from voluntary association.
The interim leader, Vice President Omar Suleiman — the object of so much hope on the part of neoconservative partisans of “stability” and “order” — is a torturer and a collaborator with the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” program. Never forget: For every dubious example of an alleged “bomb-throwing anarchist,” like those at Haymarket, there are a million bombs thrown by governments. For every innocent person harmed by an alleged anarchist in a rioting mob, there are a thousand people tortured or murdered in some police dungeon, or ten thousand slaughtered by death squads in the countryside. For every store window broken by demonstrators, there are untold thousands of peasants robbed of their land in evictions and enclosures by feudal elites.
The people of Egypt have managed to throw out one tyrant. Now they find themselves under a military dictatorship which may or may not wind up reducing the level of tyranny. But if the Egyptian people find the new boss as oppressive as the old one, says Molinari Institute President Roderick Long, they know how to get rid of him.
If there is any real hope for the future, in the long run, it is in the anarchy that the people have built for themselves on the streets. There’s an old phrase that’s popular among the Wobblies, or Industrial Workers of the World: “building the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.” The Egyptian people have made a fair start toward doing just that. May the seeds of anarchy which were planted in the recent uprising continue to germinate and grow.
Originally posted here.
C4SS Research Associate Kevin Carson is a contemporary mutualist author and individualist anarchist whose written work includes Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, Organization Theory: An Individualist Anarchist Perspective, and The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto, all of which are freely available online. Carson has also written for such print publications as The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty and a variety of internet-based journals and blogs, including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P Foundation and his own Mutualist Blog.
Posted by Ian Bertram on February 16, 2011 at 11:37 AM in Human Rights, Reclaim the State | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
|
|
When I hear someone say that soldiers “defend our freedom,” my immediate response is to gag. I think the last time American soldiers actually fought for the freedom of Americans was probably the Revolutionary War — or maybe the War of 1812, if you want to be generous. Every war since then has been for nothing but to uphold a system of power, and to make the rich folks even richer.
But I can think of one exception. If there’s a soldier anywhere in the world who’s fought and suffered for my freedom, it’s Pfc. Bradley Manning.
Manning is frequently portrayed, among the knuckle-draggers on right-wing message boards, as some sort of spoiled brat or ingrate, acting on an adolescent whim. But that’s not quite what happened, according to Johann Hari (“The under-appreciated heroes of 2010,” The Independent, Dec. 24).
Manning, like many young soldiers, joined up in the naive belief that he was defending the freedom of his fellow Americans. When he got to Iraq, he found himself working under orders “to round up and hand over Iraqi civilians to America’s new Iraqi allies, who he could see were then torturing them with electrical drills and other implements.” The people he arrested, and handed over for torture, were guilty of such “crimes” as writing “scholarly critiques” of the U.S. occupation forces and its puppet government. When he expressed his moral reservations to his supervisor, Manning “was told to shut up and get back to herding up Iraqis.”
The people Manning saw tortured, by the way, were frequently the very same people who had been tortured by Saddam: trade unionists, members of the Iraqi Freedom Congress, and other freedom-loving people who had no more use for Halliburton and Blackwater than they had for the Baath Party.
For exposing his government’s crimes against humanity, Manning has spent seven months in solitary confinement – a torture deliberately calculated to break the human mind.
We see a lot of “serious thinkers” on the op-ed pages and talking head shows, people like David Gergen, Chris Matthews and Michael Kinsley, going on about all the stuff that Manning’s leaks have impaired the ability of “our government” to do.
He’s impaired the ability of the U.S. government to conduct diplomacy in pursuit of some fabled “national interest” that I supposedly have in common with Microsoft, Wal-Mart and Disney. He’s risked untold numbers of innocent lives, according to the very same people who have ordered the deaths of untold thousands of innocent people. According to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Manning’s exposure of secret U.S. collusion with authoritarian governments in the Middle East, to promote policies that their peoples would find abhorrent, undermines America’s ability to promote “democracy, open government, and free and open societies.”
But I’ll tell you what Manning’s really impaired government’s ability to do.
He’s impaired the U.S. government’s ability to lie us into wars where thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of foreigners are murdered.
He’s impaired its ability to use such wars — under the guise of promoting “democracy” — to install puppet governments like the Coalition Provisional Authority, that will rubber stamp neoliberal “free trade” agreements (including harsh “intellectual property” provisions written by the proprietary content industries) and cut special deals with American crony capitalists.
He’s impaired its ability to seize good, decent people who — unlike most soldiers — really are fighting for freedom, and hand them over to thuggish governments for torture with power tools.
Let’s get something straight. Bradley Manning may be a criminal by the standards of the American state. But by all human standards of morality, the government and its functionaries that Manning exposed to the light of day are criminals. And Manning is a hero of freedom for doing it.
So if you’re one of the authoritarian state-worshippers, one of the grovelling sycophants of power, who are cheering on Manning’s punishment and calling for even harsher treatment, all I can say is that you’d probably have been there at the crucifixion urging Pontius Pilate to lay the lashes on a little harder. You’d have told the Nazis where Anne Frank was hiding. You’re unworthy of the freedoms which so many heroes and martyrs throughout history — heroes like Bradley Manning — have fought to give you.
C4SS Research Associate Kevin Carson is a contemporary mutualist author and individualist anarchist whose written work includes Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, Organization Theory: An Individualist Anarchist Perspective, and The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto, all of which are freely available online. Carson has also written for such print publications as The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty and a variety of internet-based journals and blogs, including Just Things, The Art of the Possible, the P2P Foundation and his own Mutualist Blog.
Posted by Ian Bertram on December 30, 2010 at 05:09 PM in Current Affairs, Human Rights, Politics, Reclaim the State | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
|
|
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
(Anatole France: The Red Lily, 1894)
Posted by Ian Bertram on December 21, 2010 at 02:18 PM in Human Rights | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
|
|
...the police encourage chaos by threatning to kettle people – at every demo now, people are premptively breaking out of agreed protest routes whenever there’s the slightest whiff of a kettle about to be set up. Ironically, the threat of kettling has served to make protests more unpredictable, and less easy to control for either police or organisers.
Paul Sagar in a comment on his own post at Bad Conscience.
I think he is probably right. Detaining people in freezing weather for several hours for no other reason than that they are on a legal protest is not exactly the best way to promote good relations between police and demonstrators. It is pretty clear that in these circumstances, the police see themselves as the last line of defence against the anarchist hordes. Since those 'anarchists' are inside the country they are become more and more an occupying force and not, as Robert Peel would have it, as being members of the same public as the protestors.
Posted by Ian Bertram on December 17, 2010 at 12:52 PM in Current Affairs, Human Rights, Politics, Reclaim the State | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog
(0)
| |
|
|

Recent Comments