When they kick in your front door - Police and the #Occupy Movement
The recent actions of Police at both the Occupy Melbourne and Sydney protests are as distressing as they are illuminating. The extraordinary and brutal lengths that the police have gone to in order to break the protests is bound to spread disillusionment and anger amongst many people. However, these actions also raise important lessons around the role of the Police and their relationship to social movements. These lessons must be addressed by the Occupy Movement if we wish to survive.
It’s not like the Occupy Movement hasn’t come across the Police before. The battles faced by the original protesters in New York been seen around the world. Such brutality had been absent in the Australian movement up until a few days ago.
The Melbourne protest was the first to be attacked by the Police. After peacefully occupying City Square for 6 days, police moved to evict the occupiers. The eviction consisted of coordinated charges at protesters (many of which were women), horse mounted police surging throw crowds as well as protesters being trampled, people being punched, the use of dogs, the use of capsicum spray, and just a general use of excessive force. Nearly 100 people were arrested, though most were subsequently released without charge. Activist, writer and occupier Jacinda Woodhead described her experiences over at the Overland Journal.
It was distressing when the lines of police moved in and started tearing fellow protesters from our lines. They were behind me and I had to keep glancing over my shoulder to see what was happening but it was hard because of the violent shoving by the police on both sides. But I saw those tactical police, working as a pack, some of them laughing as they targeted individual protesters, and I was afraid. Part of what was so shocking was that the occupation had been so peaceful, even in the standoff, and the contrast with the police behaviour was so harsh.
These ugly scenes were largely avoided by NSW Police who decided to evict the Occupy Sydney camp at 5.00am this morning, and hence eliminating the ability of protesters to call for solidarity or to record the incident. It’s in this context that the Occupy movement must decide how to relate to the Police.
Having spent time at the Sydney camp throughout the last week I understand that this has been an active point of discussion. On the first night the Police confiscated all tents and many sleeping bags. Throughout the week the Police attempted searches of the camps and the individuals in it. Cooking equipment and generators were also taken. Regular vague comments and threats were made, suggesting the Police would decide when and how the protest would end. All this whilst maintaining a constant Police presence that surrounded the camp from all angles. It was clear the Police were trying to intimidate protesters and possibly force some individuals into a conflict. Yet for the duration of the week many insisted that there be no active opposition to the Police.
Much of the argument came to a head during the General Assembly on Saturday night. The meeting was called in response to the arrests of two men standing in front of the Westpac bank. It was clear that a debate on how to respond to the Police was needed. Many of the speakers continued to advocate strict non-violence, as if the only other response would be a violent confrontation with Police. But the debate focused on more than simple tactics, quickly turning into a discussion on what the Police represent.
Many argued that the Police were just doing their job. This a very weak argument. CEO’s can be readily replaced by corporate boards. Their decisions shaped by the market. Should we then excuse the excesses of CEO’s, who after all, are only doing the job dictated to them by economic circumstances? Furthermore, in terms of the Police there is a specific question; what exactly is their job? In this instance it is clear - their job was to crush a peaceful demonstration. Are we meant to ignore this? The clear implication of the eviction is that financial centres should be free from pesky protesters and the annoyance of democracy, and returned to those who really matter; the wealthy. Whether the Police are conscious of it or not, they are acting in the interests of the powerful.
Some felt that the Police are part of the 99%, that they too are subject to the devastation of financial capitalism and hence we are on the same side. This is obviously true for many officers who come from, and live in, economic conditions that are similar to most ordinary people. But again, this ignores the fact that they are directed by those in authority. Police are trained to follow orders, and their position inherently involves the control of their own population. To go against the leadership and act with the people would not only contradict many internalised values, but would leave them vulnerable to punishment and the loss of their privileged position in society. Hence the Police are intimately linked to those with power, and often against those without it.
Others felt that the movement must constantly display a sense of love and togetherness, and that this should be extended to the Police. I feel this ignores the events that occurred in Melbourne. There is nothing to suggest that protesters in Melbourne had antagonised the Police during the week or that they posed a serious challenge during the eviction, yet the Police still broke up the demonstration and used violence to do so. One speaker even suggested that it was because we had agreed to Police demands throughout the week that we were able to avoid the crackdown that was seen in Melbourne. Of course, 10 hours later the Police had cleared out the Sydney protest as well.
Others believed that we should not focus on the actions of the Police. They argued that those in charge of the large financial institutions are our enemies, not the Police. However to ignore the actions and role of the Police would be the death kiss of the movement. What occurred in Melbourne and Sydney is not a one-off, nor was it poorly thought through tactics from the Police. The crackdowns are clearly supported by elite opinion. Both Ted Baillieu and Barry O’Farrell have made statements in support of the Police. Herald Sun journalist Andrew Rule all but felated the Police in his article:
From when the police started gathering at breakfast time, the protesters had chanted often that the workers, united, would never be defeated. They were right - except for one important point. They were mixed up about who the workers were.
It was the working members of the police union who united and never looked like being defeated. No matter how many catchy protest rhymes the coalition of protesters was chanting, the real union muscle was in blue uniform.
Rule went on to write:
One young cop quipped, “if you were a crook you’d be happy”, because half Melbourne’s police were in one city street. A perfect day for a robbery elsewhere.
Apparently the irony that Police were being used to smash a peaceful demonstration whilst real crime was committed elsewhere in Melbourne was lost on Rule.
Then there is the disgusting opinion piece by Melbourne’s Lord Mayor Robert Doyle. Entitled “Selfish rabble got what it deserved”, Doyle makes his lust for elite authoritarianism clear:
THE Occupy Melbourne protest was allowed to continue for a week. That’s a reasonable time to make a point, but the city must return to normal at some point. Our streets belong to everyone, not a self-appointed rabble…..
POLICE and City of Melbourne officers and the Metropolitan Ambulance Service officers performed bravely, professionally and efficiently. Yet of course there were the usual “Police brutality” bleatings.
We shouldn’t kid ourselves. The Police are not on our side, they are not our friends. They are being used by powerful forces to crush the Occupy movement. At some point, those within the movement will have to recognise the role of the Police and resist. The movement cannot simply agree to all that the Police demand. Demonstrations are meant to fight for the betterment of ordinary people, not to appease those in power. Acts to frustrate and peacefully resist the Police are required if the movement is to continue, or else it will be crushed.
Picture taken from http://www.kateausburn.com/2011/10/23/in-pictures-how-occupy-sydney-was-policed/
