Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [2]

[Orwell]

What sort of tactics do the Oz police deploy for large protests Orwell? Do they use techniques like 'kettling' or putting provocteurs into the crowd?

We don't to my knowledge.

I also would like some proof shown about 'kettling' (even if only to find out what it is ) and agents provacteuring. But my guess that in Australia it wouldn't happen. What motive would police have to do it anyway? What political gain is there in that? And who gets the gain?

I know you guys throw this stuff out but having seen what certain individuals and minorities do at demostrations, I would suggest it's usually protesters themselves who fire things up. Gets them Media notice. Only ideologues score points from 'police brutality' as far as I can see.

In non-democracies I can see the point of police upsetting demonstrators, gives them the excuse to gun down people and create a climate of fear, but certainly not something police would get away with in Australia. Police don't gun down people at protests, and rarely use other force other than grabbing people and dragging them off to a police van when things go troppo. The police role is all about maintaining public order and allowing peaceful protesters to protest.

Crowds are dangerous. Read Elias Canetti if you don't believe me.

You know what I think a lot of the problem is. If protesters don't fire things up and cause a riot that the police try to quell, the demostration is a bore and the Media won't report it. How often do you see perfectly peaceful protests reported in the news?

Hey! Look at the likes of Murdoch. Him and other Media bosses are basically criminals. Oh goodness me! Maybe it's undercover journalists stirring things up - and here's me blaming poor innocent lunatic ideological minorities!

[Pettytyrant101]

kettling- a method used by police to maintain order during a large demonstration by confining demonstrators to a small area with the implication the demonstraters will eventually 'boil'.


'The High Court ruling, where officers were said to have used "unjustified force", led to a call from human rights lawyers for an "immediate change to police attitudes and tactics".
Police used the kettling tactic - where demonstrators are corralled inside police cordons and prevented from leaving - against the protesters in Bishopsgate, even though they had been peaceful.
The Met said the kettling was necessary to keep violent demonstrators at the Royal Exchange from "hijacking" the more peaceful climate camp, attended by up to 5,000 people.
The High Court had ruled there had been no evidence of an imminent breach of the peace to justify the kettle, which was in place for more than four hours.
Mr Moos, who was part of a peaceful protest camp, said he had become dehydrated after being refused permission to leave.
When the police announced an appeal they made it clear the judgement did not outlaw kettling, and containment tactics would continue to be used "to prevent serious disorder and violence".- BBC

[halfwise]

Sounds like Times Square on New Year's Eve.

[Pettytyrant101]

You should try George Square in Gasgow Halfwise for an authenmtic Hogmanay or Princess Street in Edinburgh for the friendly (but less fun if you like your fun a bit, mental) tourist version!

[Orwell]

kettling- a method used by police to maintain order during a large demonstration by confining demonstrators to a small area with the implication the demonstraters will eventually 'boil'.


'The High Court ruling, where officers were said to have used "unjustified force", led to a call from human rights lawyers for an "immediate change to police attitudes and tactics".
Police used the kettling tactic - where demonstrators are corralled inside police cordons and prevented from leaving - against the protesters in Bishopsgate, even though they had been peaceful.
The Met said the kettling was necessary to keep violent demonstrators at the Royal Exchange from "hijacking" the more peaceful climate camp, attended by up to 5,000 people.
The High Court had ruled there had been no evidence of an imminent breach of the peace to justify the kettle, which was in place for more than four hours.
Mr Moos, who was part of a peaceful protest camp, said he had become dehydrated after being refused permission to leave.
When the police announced an appeal they made it clear the judgement did not outlaw kettling, and containment tactics would continue to be used "to prevent serious disorder and violence".- BBC

In none of this do I think that cops can't mismanage and/or misinterpret things, and/or at times be plain incompetent, Petty. Fuck me dead! Police are humans under pressure, and often in no win situations too.

This idea of sending in agents to stir up things for some 'political' end is thrown out there far too often - where's the evidence? I'm not saying in certain countries at certain times in certain situations, and for 'poltical' reasons, police do the anti-democratic thing; but you'd need to look at every individual 'event' (if you're intent is to find the facts) to find out what ''political motive' was in play.

I don't get annoyed that people suggest it does happen, but it's this blanket idea thrown out there that it's a matter of course police strategy. It's brain dead, misleading and (generally) wrong to keep saying it. Actually, it's the patent lack of clear thinking that annoys (and scares) me most.

Peace and Love.

[Pettytyrant101]

Um you asked me for evidence kettling atually existed- "I also would like some proof shown about 'kettling'- Orwell-I was not making any judgements at all just putting up a report from the BBC in which a High Court case described what it was- it was meant just to be in answer to your query.

[Orwell]

Um you asked me for evidence kettling atually existed- I was not making any judgements at all just putting up a report from the BBC in which a High Court case described what it was- it was meant just to be in answer to your query.

Don't play dumb, Petty. That wasn't the point I was making. (And thanks for the info btw ). I was just having a rant about spontaneous 'police knocking' in general.

[halfwise]

Given the amount of pressure police are routinely placed under, it's amazing how fairly they handle things in general. It's the few that momentarily crack under the pressure that gives the impression most people judge them by. It's too bad: if people would just reflect on how incredible it is police can act 'normal' under the conditions that would cause 90% of the population to start throwing punches, they might give them their due.

[Pettytyrant101]

I've always said its unwinnable situation- damned if you do damned if you don't. Besides most times looking to blame the police is not the right way to go- its like soldiers- yeah theres a few do horrendous or stupid things they shouldnt but the majority do their job ridiculously well, for blame you have to look a lot further up the line when it goes wrong than the guys on the front line- police or army.
Problem for the police in the UK at least is that since Thatcher used them against the miners many people see them not as an independent civilian police force to police civilians but as a government tool.

[Wisey Banks]

[Orwell]

It's a fucked situation really. Police need to be neutral as far as possible, but we're also 'governed' in what we do by 'governments." Mostly, we do things as fairly as we can - but I do get angry if I'm spat on. In the street, off duty,I'd have no hesitation about making a violent response. At least theoretically. I don't go near people, generally, who want to spit onme. Not my type really.

[halfwise]

Going back a few pages, I think Jon Stewart puts it all nicely in perspective:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/daily-show-jon-stewart-takes-iran-war-drums-210908399.html

(sorry, don't know how you geniuses embed a web video).

[Pettytyrant101]

Interesting piece on the BBC news- thought I'd give a few highlights here in light of it being Womens Day- seems there's a long way to go yet in the struggle.
This is advice from female journalists to women traveliing to particularly ME countries.

Keep conservative
What may seem unremarkable for a woman to wear in London, New York, Dubai or Paris can be interpreted as offensive or even as a come-on in other cultures. In places such as Afghanistan, especially in rural areas such as Helmand, you may never blend in as a Western woman, but wearing a headscarf to cover your hair, a long-sleeved shirt and some baggy trousers help lessen the stares and deflect at least some of the attention, if not the curiosity. Even a tight T-shirt can bring the sort of attention you just don't want or need, and obviously cleavage is a no-no.

Wear a wedding ring
Even if you are not married, do think about taking or wearing a wedding ring. That applies as much to women travellers as to female journalists. It can help deflect unwanted attention, even if it doesn't stop questions about your marital status. Similarly, it can help to carry photos of your children or your family. Everyone can relate to the idea of family, and it's also a way of beginning conversations and making links with people, whether they're interviewees or those you meet and chat to on the journey. If the worst came to the worst and you were kidnapped, it's also a way of "humanising" yourself, and trying to get your captors to relate to you as a person. Luckily, unlike some colleagues, I have never had to try that out for real. But photos of family can certainly help establish a rapport - not least with other women - while filming abroad.

Avoid wading into large, mainly male, crowds on your own
In some societies, in particular conservative ones where men and women don't mix much in public, its good advice to move in large crowds with a male colleague walking behind you. This is especially the case in large boisterous election rallies. In the excitement of the moment, you could attract unwanted attention. I shared this advice with a Canadian colleague in the late 80s in Pakistan. She ignored it, perhaps believing she had to be in the midst of the action to do her job. She was so badly groped she had to return to the hotel.

Don't be aggressive
The fastest way to make enemies in a male-dominated environment - Afghanistan or the Middle East for example - is to be aggressive. What we may regard in the West as normal assertive behaviour may be seen as disrespect for authority - in most cases here, authority means "male authority". When you show respect for authority you gain allies. When I was held for 20 hours by the Egyptian military, merely for being present at a demonstration, I took care to address my captors respectfully and my experience was a lot better than it could have been.

Don't always look men in the eye
In many conservative Muslim societies (Saudi Arabia in particular) looking a man in the eye may be seen as being "too forward" or even loose. You'll find that men don't look women straight in the eye, as a sign of respect. That doesn't mean that you have to behave meekly. Be very clear and straightforward just don't look a man straight in the face, especially if he is not looking you in the eye.

Be careful with shaking hands
In conservative societies, men do not like to shake hands with women and if you do, it might send the wrong message. Again, it may be taken as a sign of "loose" behaviour. I never offer my hand first. I wait till someone offers their hand to me.

The ful list is here-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17288577

[Orwell]

Avoid wading into large, mainly male, crowds on your own
In some societies, in particular conservative ones where men and women don't mix much in public, its good advice to move in large crowds with a male colleague walking behind you. This is especially the case in large boisterous election rallies. In the excitement of the moment, you could attract unwanted attention. I shared this advice with a Canadian colleague in the late 80s in Pakistan. She ignored it, perhaps believing she had to be in the midst of the action to do her job. She was so badly groped she had to return to the hotel.

I scanned through your post, Petty, but as usual took very little notice of what you said (as is my basic method when reading you or Eldo or GB), but I noticed this: the word 'groped.' (I pasted your whole paragraph to be polite ).

I read a book called "Reading Lolita in Tehran" by a woman who escaped Iran. In it I discovered that women on busses etcetera often get groped by Men, even though the women were dressed in the appropriate burkhas etcetera. This begs the question: just because Men in Iran want 'chaste' women, do any of them - when no one important (ie other Men) are looking - NOT take their chance to treat women with utter contempt?

[Mrs Figg]

Its bizarre its like parts of the world are an alien planet. Why would millions of 'intelligent' men want to still act like women are little more than household animals to be controlled. If thats their Culture its f***** up.

[David H]

I just read the whole post, and all of it is really just sound advice for a traveler of either sex when traveling in a different culture. It's all about being respectful.

Women do have a different set of risks to evaluate, but it should be noted that many Muslim women traveling in North America find it horrifying. The eye contact thing is kind of like getting groped.

On the other hand, a good friend of mine, a woman traveling alone, spent an extended time in Jordan and Syria a couple years ago and loved it.

[Mrs Figg]

obviously one has to adapt and be respectful of different cultures while travelling otherwise problems arise its best not to drink in muslim countries or go into churches and talk loudly while the locals are trying to pray, but when those cultures are patently absurdly sexist its hard to have respect.

[David H]

That's true. There are some places I haven't traveled because I don't have respect, and that makes them dangerous.

But it's funny that some of the much more open cultures are every bit as sexist in their ways. For example I've found in some parts of the world it's just assumed that an unmarried male traveler is a sex tourist and isn't allowed on respectable places. Hotels claim to be full and direct you to brothels I've pretended to be married just so that I can get a room

[Mrs Figg]

At least you wouldnt get stoned to death for wearing a skirt and lipstick.

[David H]

At least you wouldnt get stoned to death for wearing a skirt and lipstick.

Oh yes there are! Almost anywhere you would have a problem with that, I would have a much worse problem!

[David H]

I think there's an important distinction between how a culture treats its own members and how it treats foreigners too. Petty's article was intended as advice to foreigners. We are often allowed to walk through another culture as something alien that the rules don't apply to, and we have an ethical obligation not to abuse that.

But for women or minorities stuck within an oppressive culture it's very different. Rather than focusing on clothing rules and eye contact rules though, I'm more worried about lack of access to education and lack of financial independence. It seems to me that when women are given access to those, they can usually sort out the other rules themselves.

[Orwell]

Perhaps there is such a thing as Cultural Evolutionary Progress...

For thousands of years people could own other people. It still happens. America is a celebrated (???) historical case of people enslaving --- sometimes thinking their slaves were animals (animals you were allowed to have sex with, of course). To some degree Female Suffragettes fought against slavery too. Women in Islamic countries are still slaves. No eye contact? No, because to meet another person's eyes is always an act of Equality. Bowing the head, dropping the eye, bending the knee... do I need mention other examples... are often just gestures of servitude. Women in Islamic countries may have learned to feel uncomfortable with eye contact, but this is because, beneath it all, compliance is much safer, and more comfortable; further down, a deeper fear impells the behaviour.

I'm with you Mrs Figg. Burkhas, subservience, the ownership-by-men, are disgusting things. I will never be an apologist for that kind of cultural tyranny. I respect my Mother, my Wife and my Daughter (I have one of each and still manage to cope! ) I've been well trained, and I agree and fully concur with that training.

{{{Yes, I am a little bit afraid of the Women in my life, but not really really really scared... }}}

Is it just me, or am I right in thinking that the less we believe in old fashion Gods or God, the more emancipated women become?

Oh yes, bowing your head to God, not looking Him in the eye, is the stupidest symbol of enslavement I know. What! Prostrate yourself at the feet of an Invisible Imaginary Man... Madness....

[David H]

America is a celebrated (???) historical case of people enslaving --- sometimes thinking their slaves were animals (animals you were allowed to have sex with, of course).

That's true. Industrial slavery in North America was financed from Europe (mostly England) because it wasn't allowed at home. Anti-slavery and manumission societies were active before the revolution and supported the revolution in the hope that freedom from England would allow a move toward abolition. Not sure about your last point though. Some of us Americans are known to be very fond of our animals.

Women in Islamic countries are still slaves.

Women in some Islamic countries can own slaves to do the household chores. Within their domain some can be very powerful people, and I understand that some of them fear losing that power in a more open society.

I've been well trained, and I agree and fully concur with that training.

{{{Poor Orwell. I understand and I sympathize. Do you have any animals?}}}

Is it just me, or am I right in thinking that the less we believe in old fashion Gods or God, the more emancipated women become?

I think it's just you....

[halfwise]

I've found in some parts of the world it's just assumed that an unmarried male traveler is a sex tourist and isn't allowed on respectable places. Hotels claim to be full and direct you to brothels I've pretended to be married just so that I can get a room

I was travelling with another male buddy through Athens some time back. If a single unmarried man is a sex tourist, two of them are double trouble. Every woman on the street; every cabbie took our very careful descriptions of the type of cultural place we wanted to go as euphemisms for 'Get us to the nearest Go-Go bar and step on it!' Thirst finally wore us down and we stopped in at about the third go-go bar for a drink. Two women joined us, eventually asking if we'd buy them drinks. We knew where this was going and tried to make good our escape. Then we found out how much they were charging us for drinks. Things became a bit of a blur around then, but I remember being surrounded by a team of gorillas grinning up at me with gold teeth, while hearing my friend John outside the front door yelling bravely "I don't have that kind of money so you'll just have to go ahead and hit me! Hit me %$#!-nammit, Hit me!"

It took all my diplomatic skill and about $70, but we finally got out of there with our lives. We grabbed the first cab we could at a run, and when he started driving us to another go-go bar we got out in the middle of the street and walked back to our hostel. By sunrise we were showing Athens our fannies.

But the rest of Greece was fantastic....

[Pettytyrant101]

That's true. Industrial slavery in North America was financed from Europe- David

There is an argment America still practices slavery through its prison programs.

Halfwise, David if what you say is true about how single males are viewed whilst abroad I need to start travelling more! "Take me to the whores and drink I'm on holiday!"


I think this whole thing about control of women is really simple, forget all the codes, rules, clothing- that aint it, they are just manifestaitions of the means to control- but the reason is simple. Power.
If a women is independent, financially secure etc she gets to pick her mate. Men are stripped of power in one of the most important aspects of manhood- instead of picking a women to provide our children we are left trying to attract one. And increasingly that means providing a nice place to live, money for shoes and keeping up with the Jones.
And there is a bigger problem here- men are prone to violence- and thats not just chance like everything else on this planet humans can be bred for a purpose- and if women become the dominant choosers of which types of men they wish to mate with then that is the sort of men we will get, its the same as selectively breeding for a trait in a dog- if women have all the power, make the choice I wonder what sort of men we will get in the future- cause women like a bad boy, a chancer, someone who takes risk and who will physically protect them and the sort who can acquire money to provide a stable home for childrearing and money for shoes.
But its that fear- that a women independent, treated as an equal to a man and with all the same opportunities- has all the cards and we are left with none that drives it all I reckon. The emanicipation of women is seen by some cultures as the neutering of men.