13 ms·

Recall that the cops at #NoDAPL were effectively private pipeline security. They just had to use water cannons and flashbangs on unarmed elderly people who jus

Recall that the cops at #NoDAPL were effectively private pipeline security. They just had to use water cannons and flashbangs on unarmed elderly people who just didn't want their land and water dug up and ruined with oil spills.

wahnfrieden 3y ago
To serve and protect
- eschaton 3y ago
  Capital.
gruez 3y ago
>They just had to use water cannons and flashbangs on unarmed elderly people who just didn't want their land and water dug up and ruined with oil spills. That's a very one-sided description of what's happening. So far as I can tell, they were blasted by water canons because they set up an illegal encampment in the way of an oil pipeline that was under construction.
- theGeatZhopa 3y ago
  Demonstration is a human right. In Germany we have had people who glued their hands onto the Autobahn, big streets in cities and wherever. No one came to the idea of using water cannons. We have a lot of such actions in here. The only time bad thing happened in the last 15 years was using a water cannon on a very big group demonstrating against the "new" (its old when its finished) train station. I think, when someone is demonstrating, other should hear what is the reason for, not shoot water on them. No matter it's a camp, glued onto or big demonstrations - there is a reason for this.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >Demonstration is a human right 1. if you read my previous comment more carefully, my objection isn't against the fact that they're demonstrating at all, it's that the account you gave was very one-sided. It's possible to be for "Demonstration is a human right" but still acknowledge what exact activities they're engaging in and not rounding it off to just "demonstrating". Failing to do so is disingenuous and kills your credibility, ultimately hurting the cause you're trying to advocate for. 2. "Demonstration" might be a "human right", but it has limits. As (presumably) a German, you should know this given how many restrictions you have on free speech[1], another "human right". There's presumably complicated statutory and case law that determines exactly what constitutes as protected "demonstration", but I doubt that "unilaterally blocking a construction project that's already approved, by setting up an encampment" counts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#G...
    - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
      Of course there are rules. I think I read your comment carefully enough to make a statement, what I did. The people are demonstrating here before approval, after approval and even while the construction. It's all possible and is covered by our law. Actually: Tesla wants to extend its plant. The people living around that plant decided "no!" (Which I personally do not understand). There is a forest of monoculture trees beside that - the demonstrators have built tree houses and living now in it. They want to fight (and often did that already..). Extension of the plant is approved too.. The digging up of brown coal - the same. Here, it took like felt 5 years to remove all the demonstrators.. The pipelines, the power lines , the renewal wind energy generators - the people are demonstrating against all all the time. And it's approved too.. sometimes the projects are changed because of that, sometimes the police must regulate... But in the end, shot by water cannon is only possible if there is violance going of the demonstrators. If there's a possible solution for a change in project, then often the change is done. As I said. Demonstration is a human right and is also being written under the basic rights :) If you think, just because something got approved and because of this there shouldn't be any demonstrations or blocking anymore - I'll wait for the day a highway is built behind your house and then I remind you of your comment :) Peace.
  - wara23arish 3y ago
    From what i know germany has banned plenty of pro palestinian protests. Doing security checks on men that look arab on the streets. Banning the palestinian flag.
    - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
      You do not take into account that a demonstration must be peaceful and is not for spreading hate and violence. If it's not, then it may be forbidden to even start. But Each one is free to call up a court after a 'not allowed'. Often, the decision to forbid is Undone by law ruling. Each demonstration must be registered with guys who is responsible, with a plan how to sustain the public peace and everything around that. Of course, spontaneous demonstrations are possible too. If you're more than one, you can just sit on the street and say "demonstration". You also can gather in some point - but it must be spontaneous. If it's planned, then there are rules to adhere to. The ones which has been forbidden have been organized by Islamic organizations which are under observation by themselves - not because they're arabic, but because they are against the german laws and postulate sharia and the things like depression of woman and so on.. Germany is a free state of a lot of people from different cultures. No sharia, no hate against woman, no nothing, but peaceful living alongside each other. Pro Palestine demos here had a special taste. The guys who decide if ok or not ok look for the dangerousness: The pro Palestine demonstrators (mostly Arabic) called death to all Jews. They raised ISIS flags, had been aggressive to bypassers and the police. Some guys participating beaten up german Jews, the kids if such believes are getting more violent in the school to other kids, like it's haram for girls to speak to boys and if you're Jewish - one have fear beaten up to death. The synagogues in here has been attacked that much they needed help by the police. I'm not an Jew or Arabic, but I, too, say: NO! That's not a demonstration covered by the rules. That's pure hate and violence. There's no place in Germany for that. We're not in Palestina or other states where such is possible. We're a country where everyone try to come along and to live peacefully with each other. So, if you like to demonstrate pro Palestina - be peaceful. Than it's not a problem. Like the other not forbidden pro Palestina demonstrations show :)
      - wara23arish 3y ago
        I have seen plenty of german news falsely attributing arabic phrases as isis chants/flags etc.. It’s happening out in the open. Orientalism is still alive and thriving. Calling for israel to stop its genocide is considered hate speech in germany. Even calling israel an apartheid state is. I say No to the constant arming of israel that has killed +10K children. The people protesting dont care about whether israel is jewish or not fyi. The guilt stems from Germany’s atrocities in ww2 and it seems you’re projecting your own insecurities/guilt onto arabs. Its sadly ironic cause germany is a big reason we’re in this mess :)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - blackhawkC17 3y ago
    > I think, when someone is demonstrating, other should hear what is the reason for, not shoot water on them. No matter it's a camp, glued onto or big demonstrations - there is a reason for this. Some protest reasons are silly. Not everyone deserves to be heard.
    - mjhay 3y ago
      Worries about pipeline leaks and climate change are not silly.
    - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
      What's not important for you might be important for me. Who should decide? You or me? Just let everyone be able to say something and to be heard. If it's silly, then it's up to discussion - everything other is suppressing opinions. Which is forbidden by law.
- mock-possum 3y ago
  Sounds kinda heartless when you put it that way doesn’t it?
  - gruez 3y ago
    Do you think that protesters should be able to veto any construction project? Or only in cases that you support?
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      I think the “does it pipe toxic spill-prone chemicals through your drinking water supply” question is at least relevant to the legitimacy of someone’s stake in the situation.
      - gruez 3y ago
        In other words, "only in cases that you support".
        ethanbond 3y ago
        Uhh yeah, I don't think anyone should be able to veto anyone's construction project. I do think that people should be able to veto (or at least protest) construction projects like ones that pipe toxic chemicals through their drinking water. I mean, you can say that's "only in cases you support" dismissively, but I call it "dependent upon the facts of the situation."
        gruez 3y ago
        >I mean, you can say that's "only in cases you support" dismissively, but I call it "dependent upon the facts of the situation." I point out dismissively because clearly "right to protest" or whatever is only a marginal factor for opposing them getting kicked out. The real reason is that they supported the protesters, and because they support them, they can do no wrong, regardless of what the laws might be. Maybe this is painfully obvious to everyone already, but I want to point out that specifically.
- defrost 3y ago
  In the way of an oil pipeline that posed a very real and not imagined threat to the water supply of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  Imagine how bad the headlines would be if the city of SF dealt with illegal encampments with flash bangs that can blind or deafen you and a hose that can send you off your feet 10 yards back. This is in no way a justification for that use of force that can leave people with lifelong injuries.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Their logic can be applied to all sorts of historical situations with repulsive consequence under the guise of law and order. Pure reactionism.
yareal 3y ago
Police forces, since their inception in the 1800s, have always been about protecting capital's interests on the tax payers dime. In the U.S. this started as warehouse protection, where rich merchants didn't want to hire their own security. They also, in parallel, grew from slave patrols (which were about protecting capital, back in the era when humans were considered a commodity).

wahnfrieden 3y ago

To serve and protect

eschaton 3y ago
Capital.

gruez 3y ago

>They just had to use water cannons and flashbangs on unarmed elderly people who just didn't want their land and water dug up and ruined with oil spills. That's a very one-sided description of what's happening. So far as I can tell, they were blasted by water canons because they set up an illegal encampment in the way of an oil pipeline that was under construction.

theGeatZhopa 3y ago
Demonstration is a human right. In Germany we have had people who glued their hands onto the Autobahn, big streets in cities and wherever. No one came to the idea of using water cannons. We have a lot of such actions in here. The only time bad thing happened in the last 15 years was using a water cannon on a very big group demonstrating against the "new" (its old when its finished) train station. I think, when someone is demonstrating, other should hear what is the reason for, not shoot water on them. No matter it's a camp, glued onto or big demonstrations - there is a reason for this.
- gruez 3y ago
  >Demonstration is a human right 1. if you read my previous comment more carefully, my objection isn't against the fact that they're demonstrating at all, it's that the account you gave was very one-sided. It's possible to be for "Demonstration is a human right" but still acknowledge what exact activities they're engaging in and not rounding it off to just "demonstrating". Failing to do so is disingenuous and kills your credibility, ultimately hurting the cause you're trying to advocate for. 2. "Demonstration" might be a "human right", but it has limits. As (presumably) a German, you should know this given how many restrictions you have on free speech[1], another "human right". There's presumably complicated statutory and case law that determines exactly what constitutes as protected "demonstration", but I doubt that "unilaterally blocking a construction project that's already approved, by setting up an encampment" counts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#G...
  - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
    Of course there are rules. I think I read your comment carefully enough to make a statement, what I did. The people are demonstrating here before approval, after approval and even while the construction. It's all possible and is covered by our law. Actually: Tesla wants to extend its plant. The people living around that plant decided "no!" (Which I personally do not understand). There is a forest of monoculture trees beside that - the demonstrators have built tree houses and living now in it. They want to fight (and often did that already..). Extension of the plant is approved too.. The digging up of brown coal - the same. Here, it took like felt 5 years to remove all the demonstrators.. The pipelines, the power lines , the renewal wind energy generators - the people are demonstrating against all all the time. And it's approved too.. sometimes the projects are changed because of that, sometimes the police must regulate... But in the end, shot by water cannon is only possible if there is violance going of the demonstrators. If there's a possible solution for a change in project, then often the change is done. As I said. Demonstration is a human right and is also being written under the basic rights :) If you think, just because something got approved and because of this there shouldn't be any demonstrations or blocking anymore - I'll wait for the day a highway is built behind your house and then I remind you of your comment :) Peace.
- wara23arish 3y ago
  From what i know germany has banned plenty of pro palestinian protests. Doing security checks on men that look arab on the streets. Banning the palestinian flag.
  - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
    You do not take into account that a demonstration must be peaceful and is not for spreading hate and violence. If it's not, then it may be forbidden to even start. But Each one is free to call up a court after a 'not allowed'. Often, the decision to forbid is Undone by law ruling. Each demonstration must be registered with guys who is responsible, with a plan how to sustain the public peace and everything around that. Of course, spontaneous demonstrations are possible too. If you're more than one, you can just sit on the street and say "demonstration". You also can gather in some point - but it must be spontaneous. If it's planned, then there are rules to adhere to. The ones which has been forbidden have been organized by Islamic organizations which are under observation by themselves - not because they're arabic, but because they are against the german laws and postulate sharia and the things like depression of woman and so on.. Germany is a free state of a lot of people from different cultures. No sharia, no hate against woman, no nothing, but peaceful living alongside each other. Pro Palestine demos here had a special taste. The guys who decide if ok or not ok look for the dangerousness: The pro Palestine demonstrators (mostly Arabic) called death to all Jews. They raised ISIS flags, had been aggressive to bypassers and the police. Some guys participating beaten up german Jews, the kids if such believes are getting more violent in the school to other kids, like it's haram for girls to speak to boys and if you're Jewish - one have fear beaten up to death. The synagogues in here has been attacked that much they needed help by the police. I'm not an Jew or Arabic, but I, too, say: NO! That's not a demonstration covered by the rules. That's pure hate and violence. There's no place in Germany for that. We're not in Palestina or other states where such is possible. We're a country where everyone try to come along and to live peacefully with each other. So, if you like to demonstrate pro Palestina - be peaceful. Than it's not a problem. Like the other not forbidden pro Palestina demonstrations show :)
    - wara23arish 3y ago
      I have seen plenty of german news falsely attributing arabic phrases as isis chants/flags etc.. It’s happening out in the open. Orientalism is still alive and thriving. Calling for israel to stop its genocide is considered hate speech in germany. Even calling israel an apartheid state is. I say No to the constant arming of israel that has killed +10K children. The people protesting dont care about whether israel is jewish or not fyi. The guilt stems from Germany’s atrocities in ww2 and it seems you’re projecting your own insecurities/guilt onto arabs. Its sadly ironic cause germany is a big reason we’re in this mess :)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- blackhawkC17 3y ago
  > I think, when someone is demonstrating, other should hear what is the reason for, not shoot water on them. No matter it's a camp, glued onto or big demonstrations - there is a reason for this. Some protest reasons are silly. Not everyone deserves to be heard.
  - mjhay 3y ago
    Worries about pipeline leaks and climate change are not silly.
  - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
    What's not important for you might be important for me. Who should decide? You or me? Just let everyone be able to say something and to be heard. If it's silly, then it's up to discussion - everything other is suppressing opinions. Which is forbidden by law.
mock-possum 3y ago
Sounds kinda heartless when you put it that way doesn’t it?
- gruez 3y ago
  Do you think that protesters should be able to veto any construction project? Or only in cases that you support?
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    I think the “does it pipe toxic spill-prone chemicals through your drinking water supply” question is at least relevant to the legitimacy of someone’s stake in the situation.
    - gruez 3y ago
      In other words, "only in cases that you support".
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        Uhh yeah, I don't think anyone should be able to veto anyone's construction project. I do think that people should be able to veto (or at least protest) construction projects like ones that pipe toxic chemicals through their drinking water. I mean, you can say that's "only in cases you support" dismissively, but I call it "dependent upon the facts of the situation."
        gruez 3y ago
        >I mean, you can say that's "only in cases you support" dismissively, but I call it "dependent upon the facts of the situation." I point out dismissively because clearly "right to protest" or whatever is only a marginal factor for opposing them getting kicked out. The real reason is that they supported the protesters, and because they support them, they can do no wrong, regardless of what the laws might be. Maybe this is painfully obvious to everyone already, but I want to point out that specifically.
defrost 3y ago
In the way of an oil pipeline that posed a very real and not imagined threat to the water supply of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.
kjkjadksj 3y ago
Imagine how bad the headlines would be if the city of SF dealt with illegal encampments with flash bangs that can blind or deafen you and a hose that can send you off your feet 10 yards back. This is in no way a justification for that use of force that can leave people with lifelong injuries.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Their logic can be applied to all sorts of historical situations with repulsive consequence under the guise of law and order. Pure reactionism.

yareal 3y ago

Police forces, since their inception in the 1800s, have always been about protecting capital's interests on the tax payers dime. In the U.S. this started as warehouse protection, where rich merchants didn't want to hire their own security. They also, in parallel, grew from slave patrols (which were about protecting capital, back in the era when humans were considered a commodity).