Hamburg Girds for Large G-20 Protests
spiegel.de
spiegel.de
The protests themselves... I'm not sure what to expect. The German radical left is waaaay more peaceful than in the past, and the numbers have shrunk, plus the usual leftie infighting (militance debate, the old Israel question to name the core differences), so I think the German protests will be mostly a couple ten thousand people marching, with the occasional thrown bottle or stone plus a huge load of marijuana smoking (at least it was this during the OSZE summit in late 2016).
What I can't estimate at all is the role the anarchists from Italy, Greece and France will be - they're really militant, and for the young ones, they don't have anything to lose and therefore are willing to risk much more, including a couple years in jail, for protesting against those who put them into their position.
What I'm also not sure is what the cops will do. There will be the usual battalion of "chilled cops" (Bereitschaftspolizei) who will do the major parts of policing, but fuck I'm scared of our riot cops (BFE/USK). Had my fair share of run-ins with them, and there are a LOT of them who enjoy punching and peppering left-wing demonstrators.
As a side note, if anyone not from Germany is planning to attend: avoid being near any cop with "BFE" or "USK" written on the front label or on the shoulder/arm label. They're dangerous, and even more so when they feel they've lost control. Also, there will be a huge presence of horseback police and dog units, stay away as far as possible from these. Especially horseback police are known to literally ride into assemblies of people.
Well, I suppose if Americans even think about going wild-west and shooting up people here, our police had better be prepared to shoot at the Secret Service.
Alternatively, the Americans could let our police in on their contingency plans, so that mutually acceptable reactions to different scenarios can be developed.
You have a right to defend yourself with the minimal force necessary to counter a threat to your safety. What a threat is and what "minimal force" is depends on the knowledge of a defendant: If you know martial arts or medicine you are held accountable for the results of your "self defense" according to much stricter standards than somebody who does not. Same for the evaluation of a threat: If you are trained in threat evaluation, you are expected to be much more level-headed in dangerous situations.
violence from protesters and the police - quite likely, but no reason to get scared, just keep your eyes open. meet interesting people from all over europe instead and protest against the ever increasing stupidity & brutality of the worlds leaders
lovely time to visit Hamburg!
Who are tired of being expected to keep their heads down while the violent nutjobs at the top commit global mayhem on a much, much broader scale than a few rioters could ever hope to accomplish, you mean?
No, I don't support violence, or cheer on those who do. I've also been observing the European-style "antifa" crowd and their tactics long enough to just how ironic that label can be.
But I would pretend for a nanosecond that when it comes to "nutjob violence", this is anything like a one-sided contest.
And in this case, guess what? You take out Trump and you get President Mike Pence! He's mostly been off to the side so far, so I wonder if many outside of the US have heard his name much, but he's arguably worse than Trump. Definitely a lot more religious zeal.
Whatever the crimes those at the top have committed, if they lead a functioning democracy then violent action is about the least effective option you have at removing their policies. If some people are that pissed off then they should dedicate themselves to the cause, start or volunteer for political movements, even perhaps run for office themselves. Be a political force on whatever scale they can mange for years as opposed to a violent flash in the pan for a few minutes. Attempting assassination is just a last show of selfish, pathetic despair, and only makes things worse for the rest of us.
I get it, OK? As I think I've made it abundantly clear, I don't advocate (and and certainly not the least bit romantic about) the "revolutionary violence" route.
It's that this pigeonholing of street-level malefactors as "violent nutjobs", while pretending that those at the top (especially the likes of Erdogan and Putin) who stand patiently at the sidelines† while others enact "nutjob violence" on their behalf -- are to be considered as somehow in a different category than their street-level counterparts -- that I don't buy either.
† Quite literally, as we all saw in Erdogan's case a just a few weeks ago in the U.S. capitol.
Germany has massively risen in power, both political and economical. This is partially due to political mismanagement/corruption (esp. Eastern Europe), but a huge part of the growth of Germany results out of the loss that has been paid in poorer Europe.
And, surprise, both foreign countries and the German left do not like this.
That, and conflict in which aggressor aimed to physically destroy our population followed by half of century of being colony for USSR also had its part in our economies. When 90's finally came we had few people that remembered democracy and even less businesses that could kickstart our economies, only massive debts inherited from communist goverments.
I suspect that on a certain animalistic level, the "message" that the protestors want to get across (to Merkel and people at her level) is, basically: "Do what you have to do. But don't pretend to feel that there's anything dignified and civilized about it."
It's just that states only view their own use of violence as legitimate.
They're correct. That is the entire premise of the "monopoly on violence" which defines a state.
You can possibly argue that violence is effective, but by definition it's not legitimate, unless you choose to simply disregard the framework by which that legitimacy is conferred and substitute your own, in which case your criteria become relevant to no one but yourself.
However, it does not follow that the state is not using violence to enable speech.
State violence is still violence. The army of riot police descending on the city is there for a reason - to suppress the rights to freedom of speech and assembly for the many.
2. You make it sound like there wasn't overwhelming support for delegitimizing use of violence by any unsanctioned actor. That implicit agreement is what enables society in the first place.
Should they submit to having no protection from a minority group of people who wish them harm? It really is not odd given the gravity of the event and attendees
Look at how Jeremy Corbyn behaved - he went right to the victims of the London blaze. Theresa May, on the other side, did not. That's the difference between a politician with a spine and a walking disgrace clothed like a politician.
And yes, both have about the same danger level - May because her politics caused that desaster in the first place and Corbyn because left-wing politicians have been murdered in UK before. So you can go directly to the population without tons of security, all it takes is guts.
I don't think extreme-left violent G20 "protesters" think they are served by those "leaders".
Definition of ostensibly
1: in an ostensible manner
2: to all outward appearances
Add to that that the extreme left definitely have a segment that sees violence as justified and necessary and you have to do something. Again not all or many, but enough.
I have seen protests in Copenhagen go completely nuts.
Which raises the question: what significant study has been done on the most efficient and effective ways to protest? We are looking for minimum input for maximal change with built in systems to prevent rioting and protect the members of the protest from brutality (e.g. Violent counter protests, letting, etc).