“We Have Met The Enemy And It Is Us” II: The Rabble-Proof Fence

That little epithet ‘rabble’ tells you all you need to know about what our rulers and their friends in the media think of democracy and of us.

It refers to the 12 foot high steel and concrete barrier blocking off central Sydney to ‘protect’ 21 world leaders attending the Apec conference from actually hearing what their voters think:

Sydney fenced in for Apec summit

‘Rabble-proof fence’ Landmarks such as Sydney’s Opera House are in the protection zone

A concrete and steel fence is being built across the centre of Sydney amid a massive security effort for a summit of Asia-Pacific leaders next week.

More than 5,000 police and troops will also be deployed as part of Australia’s largest security operation ever.

The 5km (three-mile) barrier is intended to protect the 21 leaders attending the meeting from thousands of protesters expected at the summit.

Major landmarks such as Sydney’s Opera House fall inside the protection zone.

The world leaders – including US President George W Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin – will attend the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) meeting for talks on climate change, regional security and free trade.

Police say they expect protests to be violent and have warned demonstrators not to march near the venue.

They expect it to be violent? Why – do they have something provocative planned? Something like Canadian police have been up to recently?.

Some sort of underhandedness by the police seems distictly possible, given that they’ve already tried to block legitimate, peaceful protest by peaceful citizen antiwar groups and have refused to compromise at all on an agreed protest route or area. In fact they’ve actually blacklisted 29 people and banned them from Sydney for the duration.

NSW police and activists are on a collision course during next week’s APEC summit after failing to negotiate an acceptable protest route through Sydney’s CBD.

The Stop Bush Coalition and NSW Greens said the police had been unreasonable in denying their proposed route for the September 8 protest, which would pass the US Consulate at Martin Place and include Macquarie Street.

They are threatening legal action if the route is not approved.

The escalation of the dispute came as unprecedented powers allowing police to target unruly protesters during the APEC week came into effect.

The laws, which will remain in place until midnight (AEST) September 12, allow police to search and detain people within restricted zones, set up check points and prohibit certain items.

[…]

The Stop Bush Coalition, who joined the NSW Greens protesting outside the NSW government offices, said the only people mentioning incidents of violence next week were the government and police.

[…]

Spokesman Alex Bainbridge said the group was standing firm on its proposed route for a peaceful protest, and would take court action in order to legally gain permission to march it.

“The option for the police if they don’t like the march route that we’ve taken (is that) they can take us to the Supreme Court,” he said.

“We have said we are more than happy to meet them on that ground. We believe our march route is reasonable and we would like them do that quickly.”

Mr Bainbridge said a student protest march arranged for Wednesday, September 5, had also been ruled out, even though it would be five blocks away from a declared area.

The NSW Greens have also been told they are not permitted to stage “street theatre” in Martin Place during the APEC summit.

“When you add up all of these things, it seems like a clear and systematic ban on the right to protest during APEC and we reject that,” Mr Bainbridge said.

Greens Senator Kerry Nettle said she had not been informed if she was one of the 29 excluded from the CBD, but said it was inappropriate for the police to blacklist people from their own city.

Will the Australian police; like so many others have, play the usual, war on terror, security theatre – dress up as an anarchist, throw a few rocks at fellow officers then run away – thus enabling their riot squads to wade in against peaceful protestors? Well, they’ve got previous form and some of the preparations they’re making for potential protests might tend to lead one to think so.

Even prisoners will get a holiday – weekend detention has been cancelled to free up 500 spaces in the jails for any overly enthusiastic protesters.

Police have their eye on who they’re after and they’re taking preemptive action. The list of 29 excluded potential protestors was leaked to the media ahead of the conference in an attempt to intimidate.

Police warn ‘troublemakers’ to stay away from APEC

New South Wales police say they are continuing to identify people they suspect will cause trouble during next week’s APEC summit in Sydney.

The names and photographs of about 30 people on an APEC black list have been published today in a Sydney newspaper.

The head of APEC security, Chief Superintendent Peter Lennon, says an internal review has begun into how the names were released to the media.

He says police have contacted people on the black list to tell them to stay away from the meeting.

“We are also continuing to identify further potential troublemakers and we’ll continue to engage with those to make sure that they don’t come to Sydney,” he said.

I’m not at all familiar with .au law but I wasn’t aware that Australians had lost their freedom of movement and speech just yet. I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, please do.

What this is all about is the combination of George Bush’s overweening arrogance and paranoia and .au PM Hoard’s desperate desire to be seen to be a big swinging dick on the world stage. He’s got his international manhood to prove and a massive chip on his shoulder. Sydney’s new police chief also has something to prove too. Anything US Homeland Security can do, a larrikin can do better.

But back to the BBC report. With chimperiial ungraciousness Bush has apologised churlishly to his hosts:

I’m looking forward to the beautiful city and to the extent I inconvenience [Sydney residents], I apologise

George W Bush
US president

66 million quid to pay for the doubtful pleasure of his company is a pretty big inconvenience:

Australia’s government has spent A$169m (£68m, $138m) on security for the event over six years, with media dubbing the barrier the “rabble-proof fence”.

Fighter jets and police helicopters will patrol the skies above Sydney, while Australia’s navy will deploy ships, divers, water police and special forces in Sydney Harbour.

If the police are planning for trouble, even though protestors are not, what the hell are they expecting? A horde of parachutists with badly-painted banners? Greenpeace-trained suicide dolphins? Quakers armed with ground-to-air love missiles?

Or are they just having hella fun playing with and showing off all their shiny new kit and big weapons, and looking forward to breaking a few hippy heads with the government’s tacity approval? It’ll be like a gala for the poor dears, I bet they’re all polishing their big old batons in anticipation.

But hey never mind, Sydneysiders, at least your’re getting a day off, eh?

There is plenty to grumble about, says the BBC’s Phil Mercer in Sydney, with commuters and tourists facing more than a week of disruption.

Parts of Sydney’s rail network will be closed, along with many roads.

But residents have been given a sweetener, our correspondent says – next Friday has been declared a public holiday to coincide with the start of the meeting.

I wonder how many of the proud Australian citizens that their rulers and media are so democratically referrring to as ‘rabble’ will use that day off to try and take down the fence that’s excluding them from their own city while all the rich people play at politics in hermetically-sealed luxury.

“We Have Met The Enemy And It Is Us”

How scared is Bushco of the public?

These Seattle news pictures from Daniel Kirkdorffer at The Road To 2008 illustrate pretty starkly the current inability of the average American to practice their much-vaunted right to public free speech against an unpopular president and his policies without being threatened by armed goons.

The pictures were taken as Bush was on a private fundraisng tour on purely Republican business, nothing to do with his presidential responsibilities at all: not only is Bush misusing police as his personal stormtroopers (although they seem perfectly content in the role, which is what I’d find most worrying if I were American) he’s also misusing public tax money for party political purposes.

When Bush Starts Turning Weapons On Us

The photo I posted Monday night of the police officer pointing a weapon at protestors of Bush’s visit to Bellevue is getting a lot of notice.

Man of The People (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

Some have wondered whether it was photoshopped. It wasn’t. This was taken in downtown Bellevue, Washington. Shopping Town Washington some might call it. Clean skyscrappers, Hummer delight, charmlessly wealthy.

I snagged the photo from Yahoo. Here’s another:


(AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

This is disturbing on so many levels. We’re in a fight for our civil liberties. We’re trying to save our Constitution. We’re opposed to Bush’s Iraq occupation. We’re sick of the lying and corruption. And now we’re targets at the end of a gun point.

These people are the targets:

The Targets (John Lok / The Seattle Times

Democracy and Freedom in the Homeland, Bush style.

Tsk, whiny libruls, what’s their beef? Can’t take a little repression?

Now see, if they were only good Americans Republicans, instead of a bunch of islam-loving, first-amendment-respecting, god-hating rabble, they’d know this is all SOP for a reigning monarch, as laid out in the super-seekrit anti-protest handbook given out to supporters by the White House. Trouble is it’s so super-seekit that that the godless anarchist Bush-haters UnAmericans protestors can’t see it. It’s only for the Chosen Ones, so they can protect their Chimperor:

The “Presidential Advance Manual,” dated October 2002 with the stamp “Sensitive — Do Not Copy,” was released under subpoena to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of a lawsuit filed on behalf of two people arrested for refusing to cover their anti-Bush T-shirts at a Fourth of July speech at the West Virginia State Capitol in 2004. The techniques described have become familiar over the 6 1/2 years of Bush’s presidency, but the manual makes it clear how organized the anti-protest policy really is.

The lawsuit was filed by Jeffery and Nicole Rank, who attended the Charleston event wearing shirts with the word “Bush” crossed out on the front; the back of his shirt said “Regime Change Starts at Home,” while hers said “Love America, Hate Bush.” Members of the White House event staff told them to cover their shirts or leave, according to the lawsuit. They refused and were arrested, handcuffed and briefly jailed before local authorities dropped the charges and apologized. The federal government settled the First Amendment case last week for $80,000, but with no admission of wrongdoing.

The manual demonstrates “that the White House has a policy of excluding and/or attempting to squelch dissenting viewpoints from presidential events,” said ACLU lawyer Jonathan Miller. “Individuals should have the right to express their opinion to the president, even if it’s not a favorable one.”

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that he could not discuss the manual because it is an issue in two other lawsuits.

The manual offers advance staffers and volunteers who help set up presidential events guidelines for assembling crowds. Those invited into a VIP section on or near the stage, for instance, must be ” extremely supportive of the Administration,” it says. While the Secret Service screens audiences only for possible threats, the manual says, volunteers should examine people before they reach security checkpoints and look out for signs. Make sure to look for “folded cloth signs,” it advises.

To counter any demonstrators who do get in, advance teams are told to create “rally squads” of volunteers with large hand-held signs, placards or banners with “favorable messages.” Squads should be placed in strategic locations and “at least one squad should be ‘roaming’ throughout the perimeter of the event to look for potential problems,” the manual says.

“These squads should be instructed always to look for demonstrators,” it says. “The rally squad’s task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protestors (USA!, USA!, USA!). As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site.”

How? With the use of automatic weapons, presumably. Why else be toting them and threatening the crowd? “Constitution? Rights? What’s one of those? What are you, some kind of terrorist?”

Advance teams are advised not to worry if protesters are not visible to the president or cameras: “If it is determined that the media will not see or hear them and that they pose no potential disruption to the event, they can be ignored. On the other hand, if the group is carrying signs, trying to shout down the President, or has the potential to cause some greater disruption to the event, action needs to be taken immediately to minimize the demonstrator’s effect.”

Read whole article

Immediate action? Oh, you mean like at Kent State. Yes, that worked so well last time.

Do They Think We’re Stupid? (That Was A Rhetorical Question)

Although it keeps getting taken down from Youtube for unspecified terms of use violation, here’s footage of peaceful protesters stopping police provocateurs from starting a riot at the Stop the SPP protests in Montebello Quebec. CEP President Dave Coles confronts men armed with rocks and sticks:

Black bloc my ass.

The police say they know nothing and have launched an internal investigation and that the police officer was given the rock by a protester. Ho hum.

It’s good to see the bastards shown up for what they are for once but this sort of thing makes me begin to seriously doubt the efficacy of set-piece protests. The Heathrow Climate Camp, for instance, may have generated lots of publicity and I’m sure it was invaluable for networking and movement building – but I bet it was also one of the best intelligence-gathering events that Special Branch (or whatever the latest euphemism is) has had in a long time.

Protests are now like dissident window shopping for the police; anyone who protests in public these days is permanently recorded as having done so – do it more than once and you’re a potential terrorist. “I’ve got a little list…”

On the other hand protest is useful agitprop: they do security theatre, we do protest theatre. It’s all circus and gets media attention, provided there are no missing white girls to occupy their airtime.

But circus was most useful in the nineties when it was a new tactic-we’re now in the time of the ‘war on terror’ and as this incident and those at the recent G8 in Germany show even sleepy provincial PC plods now ape the tactics of their US peers and treat even peaceful, legitimate protesters as terrorists.

Daily Mail hysteria notwithstanding, protest isn’t a cushy option for hippy middle-class gap year students stick-on dreads or benefit scroungers with piercings, tatoos and mysterious habits; these days it takes guts to protest. But terrorists?

When you protest publicly, however legitimate your grievance, you are automically presumed to be a criminal. You’ll have a record, although you’re a perfectly law-abiding person. For speaking your mind in public you’ll be followed, CCTV’d, videoed and/or arrested, so that as much info about you as possible can go into an intelligence dossier (spooks have performance targets too). Subsequent to this you may well find your own communications and that of your colleagues, associates and friends monitored. You may even find yourself banned from all UK airports and environs merely for having a subscription to a conservation charity.

That’s quite a lot to ask of people, however noble and peaceful the cause, particularly in times when anyone can be arrested and held incognito and without charge for months on end, without anyone knowing where you are or what happened.

The left arned that the ‘war on terror’ would be used to label protest as terrorism. That the police and intelligence services act as agents provocateurs is nothing new: these suspiciously well-dressed ‘anarchists’ (those bandannas still have shop-bought creases) turn up at every antiglobalisation event, bent on disruption and aggression, the general idea being to get a spurious “attack” on police onto news footage, so that legitimate protest can then be described as violent riot and protestors as terrorists, so peaceful protesters can be attacked with impunity by armed riot police.

Protest isn’t all pink tutus, dogs on strings and rainbow flags: it can be fatal. Remember Carlo Giuliani, shot in the face, his head split like a melon by the wheel of a police landrover at Genoa? That’s what our democratic police are capable of when governments and elected representatives won’t listen and citizens feel forced to take to the streets to exercise their right to protest. The Canadian cops in the video above were particularly inept, but it still took a lot of courage for Dave Coles to face them down.

As I’ve said before, I’m becoming more and more enamoured of entryism as a practical political tactic as time goes on and state repression against all forms of democratic expression other than those officially approved by the state gets even heavier. “Is discretion the better part of political valour? Discuss.”

Nevertheless, despite the increase of international surveillance and repression of peaceful dissidence the fact that political change is happening is undeniable; political positions that we anticapitalists took and were derided for holding only five years ago are now so ingrained in the public conciousness as to be thought common wisdom – fast food bad, Bush BAD, sustainability good, slavery bad, climate change BAD… we’ve always thought that way haven’t we?

Does Reading The Daily Mail Make You A Bigot?

Anecdotal evidence says yes, yes and thrice yes, but one self-confessed liberal documentary filmmaker has gone for empirical evidence (and a a cheap and derivative film topic), by confining himself entirely for 28 days to reading the Daily Mail – sample news item this morning:

Why blue-eyed boys (and girls) are so brilliant

The colour of your eyes could determine your achievements in life, say scientists. They claim those with blue eyes are more likely to sparkle academically than those with brown. They are more intelligent and gain more qualifications because they study more effectively and perform better in exams…

– as his sole media and news source and seeing what happened. I think we can guess…

Four weeks isn’t long though and it meant actually giving money to buy the paper too.

If he’d really wanted evidence he could’ve gone to any B&Q on any Sunday morning (because Mail readers’re forever reinforcing their personal fortresses) and listened in to the customers, who’ve been reading it as their sole source of news for twenty years or more. “…immigrants, blah, bloody women, blah, political correctness, blah, Moslems, blah, Britney Spears, blah, kids today, blah…” Or you could just watch any recent edition of BBC’s former flagship news show Panorama, as revamped and Mailised by Jeremy Vine.

Still, it might be an interesting programme. Or not. The Daily Mail Diet will be on Al Gore’s Current TV on Wednesday and will be youtubed or bittorrented at some point with luck.

The Future Dragon Queen of World Media or Much Maligned Mother of Two?

I think it can safely be asserted that who owns the media is equally if not more important than who the politiciians are: indeed it can be argued that it’s the media that chooses the politicians.

In all, 16 of the top 30 media owners are from the US. The other countries with media owners in the top 30 are Japan (with four representatives), France and the UK (with three each), Germany (two) and Italy and Mexico (one each). Non-American companies on the top 30 list include Axel Springer, Bertelsmann, BSkyB, ITV plc., Fuji TV and Televisa.

The top 30 media owners in the report generated a total of $215bn in media revenue. Two online companies, Google and Yahoo made it into the top 30, ranked number 13 and 15 with revenues of $6bn and $5.2bn respectively

Mass media ownership transcends international borders and the polioy decisions and editorial influence of owners now has worldwide scope. Take Rupert Murdoch for example, whose overwhelming grip on American public discourse just tightened with his purchase of the hawkish, rightwing Wall Street Journal.

But is it even really Murdoch’s grip any more? Is he, to use a vulgar American phrase, pussy- whipped by a nubile young wife? Many western journalists would like us to think so.

Murdoch is in his seventies and has a much younger Chinese born wife, Wendi Deng, who’s causing much media paranoia over whether China, in addition to being one of the world’s largest creditor nations and buying up western banks, is planning to take a massive slice of worldwide media control with Deng as some sort of proxy.

Or it could be anti-Chinese racism and mysogyny, an occidental fear of the Yellow Peril, focused onto one woman, Deng. There’s plenty of evidence for that.

Private Eye has had fun for years with Wendy Deng, casting her in typical neocolonial style as a Dragon Lady who uses her sexy oriental (Did they say she’s oriental, by the way? And sexy?) ways and remorseless physical demands to shag her ageing husband to death and grab his billions for the seething communist hordes of China.

Here’s typical public schoolboy racism from Private Eye in 2003:

“Never Too Old”
by Dame Silvie Krin

The story so far: Multibillionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch has married a fragrant young oriental beautyfrom the land odf birds-nestsoup.

Now read on…

“I got great news for you Lupert.” purred the lovely Wendy Deng as she entered the gymnnasium of their 48th storey Manhattan penthouse apartment.

“You mean you’re going to switch off this lousy rowing machine and give me an ice-cold tinnie?” puffed the sweating septuagenarian tycoon, as he tried to keep up with the machine’s remorseless demands,

“First guess wrong,” hissed his peach-skinned paramaour, as she turned up the machine to Olympic Standard (Bronze) Level.

You get the drift, and besides, I’m not copying the whole thing out.

As much as I enjoy and admire Private Eye (I’ve been a regular reader for over 20 years), let’s face it, in its attitudes to women and minorities it ican often be paternalistic, colonial and crass, the cuteness and likeability of Ian Hislop on HIGNFY notwithstanding. So if I didn’t absolutely dismiss the rumour (because leaving ethnicity aside she is young and he is old and it’s been known) I suspected the motivation behind it.

But then I started to google and to read stories about how recent Murdoch decisions have favoured Chinese state interests and how his media interests in China itself collude with state censorship; and how a meticulously researched and sourced profile of Deng was suppressed by the publisher that commissioned it when Murdoch sold his stake; and how a series of publications in their turn declined to publish, for no other apparent reason than they feared to offend Rupert.

Oddly enough the only place the profile is available in full online is China’s New Century Weekly – in Chionese – it’s come to something when China will publish something western journalists are too scared to.

Murdoch has attacked anyone who seeks to write about his wife on the grounds that Deng is a private person; which is a bit flimsy considering Deng is now Chief of Strategy at MySpace China, an arm of Murdoch’s empire, and they have two daughters who will potentially inherit a substantial slice of media control in their own right, aside from anything Deng herself inherits when her husband predeceases her, as he’s almost bound to do barring medical miracles. Even the Murdoch billions can’t cheat death.

Deng, with that amount of potential clout, is no private person. She makes decisions that affect millions:

Myspace China to Move Servers to China
Mon, Jul 23, 2007 Myspace | web 2.0

In a recent interview with local media, Luo Chuan, the CEO of Myspace China, which is part of News Corp, (Public, NYSE:NWS), said the company will move its servers to China. According to Luo, the server move will be enhance the site’s appeal to local audience while keeping the China site connected to Myspace’s global database. However, the process will be technically and financially challenging and there is no set schedule for the server move. Source: 163.com

This decision of course will give the Chinese government ultimate physical control of the servers should they so choose and a hell of a lot of leverage over MySpace in terms of censorship.

Deng would like more decision making power and the question of who will control News International on Murdoch’s death is a typically toxic dynastic stew of ex-wives, alimony, alowances, inheritances, jealousy, sibling rivalry and a gliimpse of parent/child conflict.

A simmering debate over the trust that owns the family’s 28.5 percent voting stake in the News Corporation surfaced with the resignation last week of Lachlan, Mr. Murdoch and Mrs. Mann’s elder son, from his job at the News Corporation, where he was seen as a potential successor to his father.

The precipitating reason for Lachlan’s departure, he has told several people, was his father’s undermining of his position within the company over a long period.

[…]

People close to both father and son have also acknowledged, however, that tensions over the trust were a factor, and those tensions stem from the conflicting maternal ambitions of Ms. Deng and Mrs. Mann.

Last year, Mr. Murdoch told his children that he wanted to change the trust to give his two daughters by Ms. Deng, Grace, 3, and Chloe, 2, a greater role in the trust, which currently has an interest in the News Corporation worth $6.1 billion.

But Mr. Murdoch’s four adult children – three with Mrs. Mann and one with his first wife – have a say in the trust and are its primary beneficiaries, and they must approve this change.

[..]

Mr. Murdoch raised the issue of including his youngest daughters in the trust last year at a family meeting in New York, where one person close to the family said the debate was lively.

Oh, I bet it was lively.

It certainly sounds as though Deng may be trying to gain control of News International for herself and her children by Murdoch. It’d all be great fun, like a bastard sitcom mashup of Dallas and Dynasty with Drop The Dead Donkey, if it weren’t future control of worldwide tv, radio, newspapers and the internet we were talking about.

But let’s come back to Rupert’s latest purchase of the Wall St. Journal and what motivated it. Was he really pushed into by Deng as proxy for Chinese interests or was the motivation much more human – embarassment and retaliation at Deng’s past being revealed?

1. Until the details were published in the Wall Street Journal, Murdoch apparently did not know much about Deng’s past, including the affair and marriage with Jake Cherry, which secured her a US visa. One WSJ journo describes Murdoch as “ashen-faced” at their next meeting. As Ellis writes, Murdoch got a rude taste of his own tabloid journalism medicine. I can’t help wondering if that has anything to do with his current bid for the Journal?

A past Deng apparently has, according to commenters at the Wendi Deng Watchers Club:

At the tender age of 18, she freely walked into Guangzhou hotel rooms to sleep with a 50-year old married American (Jake Cherry) who spoke a language she didn’t understand (English) and was introduced to her by his then-wife (Joyce Cherry). On top of that, she suckered Jake Cherry into persuading his then-wife (Joyce Cherry) into sponsoring her into the U.S., where she lived rent-free in their home with their children, ate their food (with them), went places with them, took everything the Cherrys gave her (and also things meant for their daughter), ALL THE WHILE CONTINUING ON WITH HER AFFAIR WITH JAKE CHERRY IN FRONT OF THEIR FACES!

Whatever the truth of thiose allegations Deng certainly has Murdoch wrapped around her finger; her influence in News International is profound and will only increase if she gets her way. But in this she is no different from the many other women worldwide (cough, Huffington, cough) who marry for power, whatever their nationality. It wouldn’t be the first time a young woman with a bit of a past snares a rich old man at an opportune moment, but I do think an enormous amount of the hoohah about Deng the Dragon Lady as a Chinese double agent in the heart of the western free-market system is exaggerated and inspired by a mixture of envy, stereotypical male ideas about Chinese and Asian women and a fear of China itself.

There is truth there in that Deng has given Murdoch access to Chinese markets but the non-Murdoch media depiction of her as an evil oriental genius I think is a projection of journalists’ own misogyny, ingrained racism and worries about the potential power she is likely to wield on the demise of her husband.

Given the shrewdness and alleged lack od scruples with with she’s operated to her own advantage so far, Deng should certainly not escape scrutiny – and the claim by her husband that she is a private person and not up for discussion or beyond criticism, when he has made her a public person, is completely risible.

Yes, scrutinise Deng with a big magnifying glass, but scrutinise what she does, not what she is.