PROTECTING PITTSBURGH

Over the past week, the G20 government leaders were meeting in Pittsburgh to discuss the problems of the world at the G20 conference with such matters as the global financial crisis and the atmospheric carbon crisis on the agenda.

Naturally, they are to be protected from the active citizenry who might also have a thing or two to say about these matters.

Firstly, as reported by Waging Nonviolence, the amount and method of protection that is deemed by the holders of power both necessary and appropriate.

Waging Nonviolence notes:

About 300 protesters attempted to march toward the Pittsburgh convention center where the G20 meeting was taking place yesterday afternoon, but were met with roaming squads of police officers carrying plastic shields and batons. The police fired a sound cannon that emitted shrill beeps, causing demonstrators to cover their ears and back up, then threw tear gas canisters that released clouds of white smoke and stun grenades that exploded with sharp flashes of light. It is believed this is the first time a sound canon has been used publicly. About 20 people were arrested.

Let us suppose that the protesters were acting in a peaceful way, then the question is why was the violent response judged to be necessary? Since violence tends to create the fight or flight response almost automatically, it is not surprising that there would be there would be about twenty arrests. The violence of the law enforcement side was premeditated. They had the sound canons, the smoke canisters, and the stun grenades in place. How is this response appropriate in a democratic society? Are there any prohibitions on such behavior?

Other news from Pittsburgh, covered extensively by The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Sydney Morning Herald, and other proud journals of record was their was also a Peoples Summit to be held. Then there is You Tube. Howard Zinn gave the speil, via Waging Nonviolence:

Darth Vader imitation police persons attack students at the University of Pittsburgh:

These are good questions:

Agence France-Presse, 26 September 2009, via The Raw Story, carried the report, providing some context, although not completely exonerating the black-suited ones from violence.

Pittsburgh heaved a sigh of relief Friday as thousands of people streamed through the streets of the city in a peaceful protest march against the leaders of the world’s top economies.

Waving banners and chanting slogans, the crowd stretched out of sight as people made their way down the city streets lined by black-clad riot police, still tense after the previous night’s violent anti-G20 protests.

The G20 represents the leaders of the world’s most powerful economies and the group’s summits attract a motley crowd of anti-globalisation activists and anarchists opposed to what they see as its inhumane free market policies.

According to security forces there were up to 4,500 marchers, but Peter Shell, president of the Thomas Merton Center which helped organize the march, estimated the number at twice that.

“When I was looking back at the bottom of Oakland, the crowd went back eight to 10 blocks, and you can get 1,000 people in every block,” Shell told AFP.

“It was the biggest protest march in Pittsburgh since the 1970s protests against Vietnam.”

As the marchers massed at the top of Fifth Avenue, a riot policeman rapped his baton hard against his shinguards, making a hollow thud with every tap.

“They’re itching for a fight,” said a bystander. “This is really an excessive show of police force. Pittsburgh is a welcoming place.”

Tensions ratcheted up a notch when three protesters bearing signs that said “Human need, not corporate greed” sat down in the middle of the road, but the situation was resolved without a fight.

After a night of violence isparked by young anti-G20 protesters who defied police orders and tried to march on the summit venue, the police, thousands of whom had been shipped in from other cities, were on high alert.

The Group of 20 biggest developed and emerging economies and its meetings are a magnet for anti-capitalists opposed to what they see as an undemocratic body promoting inhumane free-market policies.

The black-clad, masked anarchists who fought running battles with police here Thursday drew inspiration from previous demonstrations at global summits, including the G20 London meeting summit in April, where where one bystander died after being hit by police.

But on Friday, when the march began to flow after the sit-down protest was peacefully removed, the tension began to lift.

At The Nation, Robert S. Eshelman reporting from on the ground in Pittsburgh gave other sides of the story:

Pittsburgh residents “got the shitty end of the stick,” Levi Miller, 53, told me. The city put up $19 million to host the summit, $10 million of which came from the federal government and $4 million from Pennsylvania, with the city responsible for the remaining $5 million. “Why couldn’t they teleconference?” Miller asked of the world leaders. “We’ve got National Guard, police from Florida and other cities, but Pittsburgh’s broke. What about the ghettos; what about the homeless, the food banks?” Asked what he thought of the protesters, Miller responded, “Let ’em protest. Why shouldn’t they be able to? They’ve got a right to say what they think of the G-20.” Miller, who works as a coal passer shoveling out ash in a coal-fired boiler room, held the hand of his young granddaughter. They were going to a baseball game at PNC Park, home of the Pittsburgh Pirates, which sits across the Allegheny River from downtown. The sight of baseball fans heading to a game amid the checkpoints, ranks of law enforcement and National Guard–and the lack of protesters–gave the militarized scene a bizarre twist.

Miller is bucking the trend. Many Pittsburgh residents I’ve spoken to in the past few days have been pumped up by the local media with stories of violent protesters intent on destroying the city. Paranoia and fear run very deep. This has created an inverted narrative. The G-20 is viewed as a savior, offering an opportunity for this battered city, now rising from the ashes of industrial decay, to shine. Conversely, critics of the G-20–especially anyone taking to the streets in protest–are here to muddy the picture and steal Pittsburgh’s glory.

As expected Democracy Now covered the Pittsburgh protests and police interactions. Charles McCollester provides historical context and an eye witness account of the events of recent days.

SUMMARY:

Looking at these video reports and trying to get some context for what occurred, not excluding the role by the media, including television stations and the press agencies such as Reuters a report of which was broadcast by The Sydney Morning Herald, my distinct in impression is of a style and manner of policing that is both authoritarian and violent. People are told to disperse that their gathering is illegal on the word of the Police Chief, not a specific law or public ordinance (although I suspect the authority is the Homeland Security Act), and immediately potentially harmful means are employed, including the use of high pitched noise for the first time. We saw the effect of these methods of the older male in the video. The use of force looks as if it was excessive, and non democratic in application, or so it seems to me. There is no place for violence on behalf of authority in a democracy against people peacefully exercising their rights to gather and petition the government.

To this point in time, I have not seen any commentary of these events in the MSM, nor for that matter a report of the People’s Summit.

ELSEWHERE:

Tony Norman, via Common Dreams, for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette does the honours and concludes:

Security for the G-20 in Pittsburgh is put conservatively at $20 million. There was an estimated $50,000 in damage to windows and storefronts caused by anarchists in a few neighborhoods on the East End. But more than a few windows were broken last week. Something ghastly happened to us.

We proved we were willing to give up something very precious to us for a few days in the international spotlight. We invited authoritarianism into our homes and promised not to whimper while it danced on our necks. This is truly pathetic.

Advertisements