There was a short-lived meme on Twitter recently, riffing on the Teutonic gift for coining words that have no exact English equivalent, but nevertheless capture meanings beautifully. "Schadenfreude" is one of the best examples. (I'm trying not to indulge at the moment.)
So I'm left wondering whether there's a German expression for times when reprehensible people appear to do the right thing, albeit for questionable reasons and in contexts which make the rightness of their actions suspect.
As we all know by now, Judge Charles Hackland, ruling in the conflict of interest proceedings brought against Rob Ford, has ruled that Mayor Stupid must be removed from office. No surprise at the finding, although there was a fair bit of energy backing the prediction that the court would somehow find a way not to apply the maximum penalty.
However, it's the reaction of our supposed Newspaper of RecordTM that begs further examination. As the pinstriped pamphleteers of Front Street argue:
Well, no argument there, although it's not as if the observation first came to life in the Front Street drawing room over brandy and cigars. Pious and paternalistic, but essentially correct. But it's what comes after that triggers the WTF:
[Slim Pickens voice]
Did you say "Attack a Culture of Entitlement?"
[/Slim Pickens voice]
Is there anyone who embodies that more than Mayor Stupid and Brother Dumbfuck? A pair of guys who think they can flout the rules and blow off the consequences whenever they feel like it because … because ... shut the fuck up, OK? Taxpayers taxpayers taxpayers, subways subways subways, mandate, drool, release the trolls.
Let's review: here's a guy who thinks he's entitled to
Phone Andy Byford and demand to know where his bus is
Abuse and demean public servants
Ignore the rules whenever they don't conform to his own sense of what's right
Demand that city staff fix the road in front of his family business
Blow off his official responsibilities to go coach football, and use public resources to do it
And that's just off the top of my head.
But let's move on, and compare that to the Globe's support for their charming ideological brethren in Ottawa, and ...
electoral fraud
robocalls
naked attacks on dissent
instructions for disrupting parliamentary committees
secret "free-trade" deals
Mordor
embarrassment and damage to Canada's international reputation.
(But never mind all that just now -- is there a trend we might not be catching? Like, omigaaaawd ... )
In the continuing train wreck otherwise known as the Wente Clusterfuck, it's easy to lose sight of our National Fishwrap's many other acts of civic and linguistic vandalism. While this little corner isn't fit to polish Carol Wainio's flatware, perhaps this one little bit of paint on the cave wall might merit a footnote.
Sister Sage has the most comprehensive smackdown yet to the pearl-clutchers of the B'nai Brith getting their gutkes in a twist over Montreal demonstrators Sieg Heiling the cops.
Fascism is fascism, boychiks. The folks getting their heads beaten in get to call it as they see it, whether it offends you or not. Quit fardraying us a kopf.
Julian Fantino.
Mark Fenton.
Tony Warr.
Jeff McGuire.
Marc Charlebois.
Todd Storey.
Luke Watson.
Michael Dicosola.
Babak Andalib-Goortani.
Glenn Weddell.
Kevin Antoine.
Michael Adams.
David Donaldson.
Geoffrey Fardell.
Oliver Simpson.
Roy Preston.
Rodney Pugh.
Gordon Trumbley.
Cecil Price.
Lawrence Rainey.
Bull Connor.
" ... with the election of Stephen Harper, everything changed. No prime minister in Canadian history has come to power with such a ruthless determination to implement an agenda so at odds with the interests of the country and the values of its citizens. This involves not just a set of policies aimed at eliminating the social and economic role of the federal government. It includes, on a parallel course, a determination to change the political culture of the country to one that either supports or acquiesces to that policy agenda. (The Governor General's Christmas message was about volunteerism and philanthropy, Harper's long-term replacement for the state.) Working in tandem, these two political streams, if allowed to proceed for any length of time, could effectively change the country permanently -- or at least for all currently living generations. Harper aims for nothing less.
If the NDP and the Liberals continue to do politics as usual, as if Harper is just another political adversary in a normally-functioning system, Harper is almost certain to win again."
It doesn't make up for the fact that it still publishes Wente, but every now and then the Globe manages to do something worthwhile.
My only quibble with Martin, other than that he still hasn't appeared on the Tweeter, is that he doesn't quite go where he's obviously heading and use the F word. The propensity for control and domination is staring us right in the face.
Just take a look:
Fetishizing the military
A publicly funded propaganda machine, amplified by willingly braying transmitters at Stun Media
Disdain for democratic accountability
Obsessive message control
Warrantless citizen surveillance
Jails, jails and more jails
Demonizing and smearing of opposition
Really, are these the hallmarks of a government that has its citizens' welfare at heart? Haven't we seen this movie before?
"Confession is not betrayal. What you say or do doesn't matter: only feelings matter. If they could make me stop loving you—that would be the real betrayal."
She thought it over. "They can't do that," she said finally. "It's the one thing they can't do. They can't make you believe it. They can't get inside you."
"No," he said a little more hopefully, "no; that's quite true. They can't get inside you. If you can feel that staying human is worth while, even when it can't have any result whatever, you've beaten them."
On Metro Morning today, Matt Galloway talked to police union boss Mike McCormack about the nameless asshole who broke Dorian Barton's arm at the G20 last summer, and about the SIU's investigation coming to a dead end.
The Star doesn't always get it right, but this time it's taken a centring pass in the slot and buried it in the top corner.
When the provincial Special Investigations Unit threw in the towel and said it couldn't identify the brutal, cowardly slimeball in a uniform who broke Dorian Barton's arm at the G20 last summer, the CBC story prompted a somewhat sarcastic response from the progressive blogosphere, including this.
Watch as the Conservative Attack ParrotsTMcrank up the squawking and the national conversation gets sidetracked into a giant foofaraw about honour killings.
Clayton Ruby represents Charlie Veitch, who was charged under the Public Works Protection Act in connection with the G20 clusterfuck. He's got some choice things to say about the Charter of Rights and freedom of assembly.
Best suggestion: cut off the money. Isn't that reassuring?
How does the bus even move, with so many people underneath?
Can't remember where I saw this gem* earlier this week. It was a reference to a noxious habit we've been observing from the PMO: demonize, smear, fire and/or squeeze out people who go off-message. Even if they're professional public servants whose careers have been devoted to impartiality. (Perhaps not "even," but "especially.")
Writing in Thursday's Globe, Lawrence Martin suggests that the latest official in the Harper gunsights is CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein. Something to do with the CRTC not moving quickly enough to grant the kind of broadcasting licence being sought by Sun Media for its new "Fox News North" network. We all know, by now, who's behind that.
This shouldn't, of course, come as a surprise to anyone familiar with the Harper modus operandi. It's not as if he's demonstrated much tolerance for opposing viewpoints, or for people who don't jump fast enough when he snaps. But as one of Martin's sources argues, do we really want a society in which the ruling party gets to decide who gets broadcasting licences? As one observer suggested, this is Maurice Duplessis stuff.
I'd like to think that on top of the G20 clusterfuck, the self-inflicted wounds over the census, the idiocy over Homegrown, and the lies about the coalition, this might be the tipping point, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Least of all because in the current political landscape, I'm not sure what the tipping point is, or whether there even is such a thing any more. It's not as if Harper's drooling base is going to walk over any of these things.
The only thing that gives one pause about Martin's column is his observation that Harper
Really, why would the rest of the corporate media say anything? So another conglomerate wants to set itself up with a broadcast operation? It's not as if we're going to start hearing new voices and new perspectives that the owners and managers don't want us to hear. The whole script about the "liberal media" ought to be evident as the transparent Rove/Ailes contrivance that it is.
But back to the tipping point, if there is one. A few days ago Silver Donald Cameron, in a column that will no doubt be caricatured, misrepresented and misinterpreted because of its reference to the Nazis, wondered when Canadians would start to worry about the Harper government's ruthless manipulation, arbitrary proroguing of Parliament, contempt for the Supreme Court, and systematic assaults on the infrastructure of democratic institutions.
Authoritarian, vindictive, contemptuous, ideologically driven and arbitrary. Not to mention how stupid they clearly think we are. So what can we do?
The answer clearly isn't in Parliament. The Liberals vote with the government whenever it matters. Collectively, the opposition parties don't have the courage or the organizational wherewithal to force a non-confidence vote (Um, Iggy? You know this is a minority parliament, right?), and in the unlikely event that they actually develop spines (or discover e-mail), Harper can just prorogue again. It's painfully clear how easily he can get away with it.
Back to Mr. Cameron, who suggests, quite reasonably, that the opposition must come from outside parliament. Not sure how easy that's going to be, given that dissent seems to be bringing jackboots on the stairs in the middle of the night or riot-squad gorillas, but it's a start. And yes, he's probably right about how effective signing a petition is going to be, but perhaps he's also onto something when he wonders whether the latest series of embarrassments might nudge more Canadians out of their apathy. As he puts it,
As this video from the Real News suggests, the focus on one power-tripping cop obscured the broader story of how the police were abusing the power of preventive detention. Apparently wearing a bandana and having a lawyer's phone number written on your arm were reason enough for them to target you.
I'm sure an independent inquiry will get to the bottom of this.
UPDATE: More detail about Officer Josephs and assholes in uniform generally from the often-snarky, always-worthwhile Sabina Becker. Knowing that guys like this think of us as human garbage and don't like the thought of being held accountable really makes you think twice about taking to the streets. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
It's not a bad analogy. Steven Chase writes in the Globe's Ottawa Notebook that the Harpokons (I won't dignify them by calling them Tories, or even Conservatives – those are terms with honourable connotations) have decided to make their stand on the census kerfuffle with the Hogan's Heroes defence. (In fairness, lest anyone think they're all alone, they can take some comfort in the support they're getting from random flying monkeys.)
Good for a laugh, but it leaves me with the same uneasy feeling I get after watching Jon Stewart. Like the people Stewart skewers so effectively, the Harpokons just shrug it off and persist with their stolid disregard, even contempt, for differing viewpoints, critical engagement, and independent thought for that matter. They've been sticking to their guns on this despite a virtual avalanche of concern and opposition to their plans to neuter the census. Not just from the “socialists” and “elitists” they like to deride, but from virtually every sector – even those that normally align with them.
While the census kerfuffle may leave them with some temporary embarrassment, it's not as if they're going to sustain any serious political damage. And that's the worrisome part.
It's not as if they're going to pay for turning the jackbooted bullyboys loose on us during the G20.
It's not as if they've had to pay for their continuing campaign to intimidate and silence critics and undermine the entire notion of an impartial and professional public service. (Richard Colvin? Name ring a bell?)
Not content with their attempt to dismantle the foundation of all good public policy via their assault on the census, now they're going after employment equity, because, as we all know, white men face such numerous systemic and institutional barriers in our society. Although apparently Jason Kenney's been trying to reassure critics that affirmative action isn't being targeted. Dog whistle? Ya think?
The most stomach-turning thing about all of this is listening to otherwise well-intentioned observers who caution us about the Harpokons and warn us that we can't afford to give them a majority. Well, here's a question: can someone please explain how this is any different from what we'd see under a Harper majority? Because I really want to know ...
Wilding: a slang term that refers to the practice of marauding in bands to terrorize strangers and to swagger and bully. From the Urban Dictionary. The term came to prominence in connection with New York's Central Park Jogger case in 1989.
Well, it looks as if the Toronto Police Services Board is going to launch an “independent civilian review” of the giant G20 clusterfuck. That should go well. No doubt it'll have the power to subpoena witnesses, compel production of documents, and cut through the layers of misinformation and bullshit that have characterized virtually everything we've heard from official channels.
That's one view, anyway. There's another view, one more likely experienced by the people who got kettled, rousted, tasered, beaten and locked up. From their perspective, the view looks more like this:
authoritarian bullies who know they're untouchable
brutality
lying
torture
beatings
sexism
homophobia
Even if the bogus charges of “breach of the peace” or “causing a disturbance” don't stand up in court, nothing changes the fact that hundreds of people were locked up in the Eastern Avenue gulag and treated with contempt, sadism and utter disregard for their fundamental rights. The message couldn't have been more clear: exercise your rights to free speech and free assembly, and this is what'll happen to you. Don't like it? You shouldn't have been there in the first place.
"The booking sergeant then immediately came from around the desk and grabbed me by the neck while officers 8830 & 8659 held me by the arms. I was dragged into an interrogation room with the door shut to be held by officer 8830 & 8659, while the booking sergeant began to beat me in the face, body and kick my legs. I was never asked to remove my clothing nor would I have objected if a strip search was what they were attempting to do - but my clothing was forcibly removed in way as to flip myself around like a rag doll on the concrete floor. The buttons of my shirt were ripped open. At this point I was completely naked and the beating continued. At no time did I resist or fight back, nor did they perform a search of my areas. I had defensive bruising to my foreams and many welts, burns from being dragged along concrete which I have documented with a physician and taken pictures of. The booking sergeant advised that he was going to rip out a nipple ring that I had (which was not returned to me) and made an attempt to pull it out, however, either officer 8830 or 8659 advised him not to. This was torture. It was removed in such a forceable way that it was swollen and painful for days following the assault. I did not resist and would have removed it myself if I was asked to. I was taken through the booking hallway completely naked in front of female officers and forced to sit in a holding cell for approximately 4 hours - completely naked."
Nathan Adler talks about being herded into the veal pens on Eastern Avenue after getting caught up in a snatch-and-grab operation near Novatel on the Esplanade. Forget, for a moment, about the presumption of innocence and the numerous problems inherent in mass indiscriminate arrests. One of the details that stands out, particularly, is his description of a claustrophobic prisoner having a panic attack and the reaction of one of the cops:
" ... the officer responded by taunting him and saying, “if you can’t handle it now wait until we get you into a cell, it’s going to be ten times worse”. "
(Gratuitous sadism. If nothing else, it's a pretty novel spin on “serve and protect.”)
Stephen (can't really blame him for not wanting to give his full name) earned this for little more, it seems, than natural curiosity and throwing the “rock on” gesture to a few music fans whose black clothing earned them the attention of police:
"In the blink of the eye my coffee had gone sailing through the air, and I felt the unmistakable impact of a body tackling me to the ground. Realizing the state of affairs, and the likelihood that this was an officer of the law, I immediately went limp and declared out loud : “My identification is in my right hand pocket, I am complying, MY IDENTIFICATION IS IN MY RIGHT HAND POCKET, I AM COMPLYING”. My statement had gone completely ignored, and with face ground into the pavement, another officer proceeded to kick with vigor into the right side of my ribcage. Seconds later, my hands were cuffed behind my back, and I was pressed firmly against the brick wall that lined University Avenue. “You cocksucker Black Bloc douchebags”, yelled an officer directly into my ear, “You think you are so fucking tough? How are you now without your faggot friends?”
"I was walking calmly off Queen’s Park lawn, with both hands in the air in peace signs when about five officers grabbed me, hit me repeatedly with batons and fists, threw me to the concrete, crushed knees into my cheek bone, back and thighs, dragged me on the pavement and put handcuffs on me.
"I was then transferred to officers who were not in riot gear, who demanded I tell them why I had come to trash their city and with which group I was with. When I responded that I wouldn’t answer any questions until I talked to a lawyer, they said that would only make it harder on myself and painfully tightened the handcuffs to cut off the circulation in my hands. When they were about 20 meters from the University Street intersection area, where I could see other individuals detained lying on the ground, one of the officers very forcefully squished the palm of my hand toward my forearm and squeezed painfully underneath my upper arm, making me double over in pain, while he screamed “Stop resisting arrest asshole! Stop resisting arrest!” repeatedly."
Sexism, homophobia, sadism, arbitrary and authoritarian behaviour, abuse of power. Have I left anything out? Nothing new here. All of these things have a common theme: cops with contempt for the people they're supposedly there to serve and protect, and knowing they're untouchable and will never be held accountable.
So where is it that cops get the idea that it's OK to do this? Is it a matter of organizational or occupational culture? Is it a question of personality traits already latent in people attracted to police work? All worthwhile questions, perhaps to be discussed in future postings.
Part of the answer may lie, though, in the class origins of the whole idea of “policing” -- essentially, acting as hired muscle for the elites, mainly to keep the lower classes in line. This is at the heart of a thoughtful argument by Jeff Shantz, ostensibly in reaction to Naomi Klein's call for the police to stop the PR and do their jobs. Shantz points out that the very term “police” comes from the Greek polis – city – and that
"...The institution was created to regulate the working classes and poor (the so-called dangerous classes) who were moving to cities after having been violently displaced from their communal lands (and who were rightly pissed about it and did not want jobs in the deadly factories). Look at the legislation that founded the first modern police forces in France and Germany. The royal edict of 1667 that founded the first modern police under Louis XIV in France stated clearly that the job of police was: “purging the city of what may cause disturbances, procuring abundance, and having each and every one live according to their station and duties.” Procuring abundance simply means ensuring the condition for economic exploitation. Having people live according to their station and duties is as clear an expression of maintaining class inequality as you can get.”
It's an important and troubling observation: the idea that maintaining the lower orders in their station is the very foundation of policing as we understand it. It's one that raises fundamental questions about the assumptions inherent in the expression “law and order.”
In any event, we saw during the G20 what happens when the mask comes off. All the niceties about civil society, all the smarmy talk from Bill Blair about community partnerships, was revealed for the insubstantial window dressing it is. The G20 demonstrated, quite clearly, that when the shit hits the fan, many cops have zero regard for the laws they're sworn to uphold or for the citizens they're sworn to serve and protect. All that goes down the toilet. This is all about power and showing us who's boss. And nothing speaks more eloquently to the quality of a person's character than the way he or she treats people with less power than him/herself. The examples cited above don't even scratch the surface.
What's been especially hard to stomach, subsequently, is the way they then turn around and ask for help from the public – the citizens whose rights they've been violating – in identifying “vandals.”
Once again, recall that thousands of cops, with a billion-dollar budget, with arbitrary arrest powers enabled under imaginary laws, couldn't protect a few vehicles or keep a handful of dickheads from smashing windows. They can't do that, but they're pretty good at beating the shit out of peaceful citizens exercising the rights guaranteed to them under the Charter.
If anything's been made clear, it's the relative weight of elite interests compared to our supposedly fundamental freedoms. No doubt a lot of people are going to think twice about taking to the streets again. And wouldn't that be convenient for Stephen Harper and his G20 paymasters. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
Just finished listening to a ridiculously shallow and badly scripted interview by Robyn Brown on CBC Radio's Here and Now with Farrah Miranda (was in the car, so I may not have the names right, and I'll correct if necessary) from the Toronto Community Mobilization Network. TCMN is conducting its own investigation of the violence and brutality inflicted upon peaceful demonstrators by police during the recent G20 summit in Toronto. Not surprisingly, this grassroots initiative stems, in part, from a recognition that there isn't going to be any meaningful institutional response. No one is going to be held accountable by the Police Services Board, the city, the province, or Ottawa.
So what's Robyn Brown's approach to this, but to badger Ms. Miranda for signs of “balance?” It sounds to me like you've got your minds made up already, she said – are you going to talk to the police and get their side of the story?
Wow.
Where to begin? How many things can you find wrong with this?
Well, let's start with intellectual laziness. That's very much in evidence in Ms. Brown's attempt to impose a facile “he said / she said” framework on the story. There aren't many stories that boil down to that. Framing it as “protesters say this, but police say that” makes it possible to ignore all kinds of complexities and shoehorn the story into a simple one-size-fits-all model. That may work for an eight-minute segment before you break for the news on the half-hour, and it may mean you can file your story without any conscious effort, but it doesn't do justice to the story or serve your listeners especially well.
And the suggestion that the Network organizers have their minds made up? Or that they ought to be talking to the police to get their side of the story? Let's see now. The Network is asking people to come forward with pictures, video and first-hand accounts of their treatment at the hands of police. In other words, anyone who was:
gassed
beaten
tasered
kicked
shot with plastic bullets
subjected to racial or ethnic profiling
“kettled” in the rain at Queen and Spadina
held without charge in the gulag on Eastern Avenue
threatened with gang rape
degraded by sexist and / or homophobic slurs, etc.
Associated with the CBC interview, I also heard one citizen describe how the bones in her finger had been shattered by a police baton. I also heard a doctor who was treating people for trauma, broken bones and concussion describe how police confronted her and confiscated her gauze, bandages and other medical supplies.
Just an observation, but I'd say those folks have already heard the police side of things quite clearly.
And it's not as if the traditional media outlets are going to devote any further air time or newsprint to these stories. They've got their images of broken windows and burning cop cars, and their interest in revising the narrative is pretty much non-existent. (Time to move on. Didn't Mel Gibson say something rude or something?)
If anything, the TCMN's initiative is just a further demonstration of the impotence of regular institutional responses – and of how traditional media outlets fail in their responsibilities. We already know that bodies such as the Police Services Board, not to mention all three levels of government, aren't even going to pretend to care about the citizens whose rights they're supposedly charged with safeguarding.
I've written at some length about the need to assert control over the way the story of the G20 summit is told. It's not going to be easy, given the institutional and political imperatives interested in spinning last weekend's events as a bunch of black-clad anarchist thugs trashing our peaceful city, yada yada yada. That doesn't make it any less important, however.
Just so we're clear: this isn't a story about a bunch of world leaders / political hacks / meat puppets for the corporate string-pullers getting together and agreeing on a whole bunch of things that'll make our lives a lot more painful. And it's not a story about a few morons breaking windows. And it's not a story about how thousands of riot cops couldn't protect a handful of cars, much as I'd like it to be about that.
No. This week's story has been about the corporate / state security apparatus using our fundamental freedoms for toilet paper. It's about people being locked up for hours without water, without being allowed to go to the bathroom, packed into cages like animals. It's about homophobic slurs and threats of sexual violence. It's about thuggish behaviour by people who know they can get away with it, because the mechanisms designed to ensure accountability are laughably weak.
Last Sunday evening, my partner and I rode our bikes eastward on Queen toward Spadina. We were held up at Queen and Cameron, about a block west of Spadina, by a wall of bike cops, backed up by a phalanx of more heavily armed officers from various police forces. We could see by looking eastward that the intersection of Queen and Spadina was completely cordoned off, so we pulled up and just watched. As we waited, we watched the facial expressions change on the cops confronting us; shoulders straightened, muscles tensed, batons brandished openly. The front line of bike cops started herding us westward, ordering us to move back, buzzing their bike buzzers and pushing us. We all complied, but you can only move as fast as the guy behind you, and that wasn't quick enough for the officers pushing us westward, and they began shoving us. I couldn't help but wonder whether they were doing it because they figured they could, that their uniforms amounted to a licence to push people around?
Theodor Adorno's description of the authoritarian personality may provide some insight, but ultimately it pales in comparison to some of the stories emerging from the weekend. As it happened, while we were being shoved westward along Queen, several heavy-duty unmarked vans pulled past us to discharge the heavily armed tactical squads, and that was our cue to get the hell out of there.
Tommy Taylor's account of his arrest and detention is mind-blowing. Hours without water or a chance to pee. Homophobic slurs. Abuse of disabled prisoners. At the conclusion he, like hundreds of other people, is released without being charged. It seems apparent that the police knew they'd have a hard time making charges stick, but in the meantime, hundreds of people were abused, threatened and deprived of the basic rights we normally associate with living in an open society. Got a problem with that? Go complain. There are avenues for that, Dalton McGuinty assures us.
And then there are the accounts of people who were actively beaten, threatened and abused. Lacy MacAuley was arrested outside the makeshift gulag on Eastern Avenue. Her story sounds like something from behind the Iron Curtain. Amy Miller talks about cops threatening to gang-rape her.
In a few weeks, or perhaps months even, there may be an inquiry. Findings will be announced. Wrists will be slapped. Tuts will be tutted. And eventually, if we're lucky, someone will decide that the police - Toronto, OPP, ISU, RCMP, York, Halton, Montreal, Sudbury, Barrie, and anyone else who was invited to the party - had absolutely no justification for treating people the way they did. Feel better now? If you want to complain, there are established channels. Uh huh. Good luck with that.
This needs to be hammered on, repeatedly, all the more so because the MSM are getting tired of it. There's an implicit assumption that our attention spans are, well, limited. Yeah, yeah, there were a lot of smashed windows and burning cars, and maybe the cops overreacted, but there were a lot of smashed windows, and - oh, look! Something shiny!
And that's the dynamic that the corporate / state security apparatus is counting on. The more distracted / cowed we are, the easier it is for them to keep doing this to us. Yes, it's inexcusable how people were treated, and it shouldn't have happened, but by the time these processes wind their way to the end, people will have forgotten. In the meantime, the association of protest and activism with all the negative connotations continues, and the mere act of stepping outside your door becomes risky, unless you're planning on doing anything more than being a good little consumer / producer.
So, part of the narrative that needs to emerge from this weekend is: let's just keep in mind how fragile our fundamental freedoms really are. It's become pretty clear that those charged with serving and protecting us, and those who control them, don't think they count for much.
Not surprisingly, the battle to define the history of the last few days is in full swing. The whole point of the story we're being fed, by the institutions of state/corporate coercion and their PR transmitters in the corporate media, is to marginalize and demonize the very idea of activism and dissent.
Moreover, this shouldn't be reduced to a one-dimensional debate over where we land on the left / right spectrum. Fundamental freedoms and their assertion in the face of things like free trade, summits and continentalism are not intrinsically left or right, and part of our task in fighting for control of the narrative is resisting that kind of oversimplification.
